Knocking Dawkins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2012, 03:45 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(28-08-2012 07:27 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 04:12 PM)Humakt Wrote:  NOMA?

Non-Overlapping MagisteriA. It's a belief that science and religion answer different questions and have nothing relevant to say about each other's domains. I personally think that would be true if religion made no claims of fact (such as "prayers are heard and answered"), but it does, so it's a bad belief.

Thanks, I personally think its true as well. with the slight difference that I dont see how the fact the religious often make "fact" based claims invalidates the belief. That they make fact based claims does not mean that have anything relevant to say, in the same way as tacking science onto the end of creation, does'nt magically make it suddenly scientifically valid.

In short I think the beliefs kosher enough, and the fact that asshats talk rubbish about stuff they shouldnt, doent make it assertion wrong.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Humakt's post
29-08-2012, 06:46 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
May I ask what is this thread? Did RC put this up? Is this the one he deleted, so someone returned it, or what?

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 07:39 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 03:45 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 07:27 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Non-Overlapping MagisteriA. It's a belief that science and religion answer different questions and have nothing relevant to say about each other's domains. I personally think that would be true if religion made no claims of fact (such as "prayers are heard and answered"), but it does, so it's a bad belief.

Thanks, I personally think its true as well. with the slight difference that I dont see how the fact the religious often make "fact" based claims invalidates the belief. That they make fact based claims does not mean that have anything relevant to say, in the same way as tacking science onto the end of creation, does'nt magically make it suddenly scientifically valid.

In short I think the beliefs kosher enough, and the fact that asshats talk rubbish about stuff they shouldnt, doent make it assertion wrong.

When religion makes claims about the natural world, they may be refuted, invalidating that claim. NOMA says thou shalt not make claims about the natural world.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 07:41 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 06:46 AM)Filox Wrote:  May I ask...

No.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
29-08-2012, 07:41 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 06:46 AM)Filox Wrote:  May I ask what is this thread? Did RC put this up? Is this the one he deleted, so someone returned it, or what?

He re-posted it. It's a good thread; the original was slightly derailed.Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-08-2012, 10:39 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 07:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 03:45 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Thanks, I personally think its true as well. with the slight difference that I dont see how the fact the religious often make "fact" based claims invalidates the belief. That they make fact based claims does not mean that have anything relevant to say, in the same way as tacking science onto the end of creation, does'nt magically make it suddenly scientifically valid.

In short I think the beliefs kosher enough, and the fact that asshats talk rubbish about stuff they shouldnt, doent make it assertion wrong.

When religion makes claims about the natural world, they may be refuted, invalidating that claim. NOMA says thou shalt not make claims about the natural world.

Says can not, not thou shalt not. Its stating that the two disciplines have nothig to say in each others fields, just because some religious folks make fact based claims eronously, niether means that science can now make faith based claims or that there errors make the statement incorrect.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 10:45 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 10:39 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 07:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  When religion makes claims about the natural world, they may be refuted, invalidating that claim. NOMA says thou shalt not make claims about the natural world.

Says can not, not thou shalt not. Its stating that the two disciplines have nothig to say in each others fields, just because some religious folks make fact based claims eronously, niether means that science can now make faith based claims or that there errors make the statement incorrect.

I never said anything about science making faith-based claims. What would that even mean?

Gould was trying to define away the problem, but was unsuccessful. Religions all make claims about the natural world, all of which are subject to test.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 11:17 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(28-08-2012 06:39 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Thomas.

I thought that was unnecessary, inappropriate and really petty. For the record, I disagree with what you said about me. That's all I'm going to say about that.

It was necessary and I'm glad you got the hint. Now, how about growing up and being useful in the forum debates. That means addressing disagreement with a poster directly to the idea presented. Not hurling veiled insults.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
29-08-2012, 12:20 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
Says the man who just did exactly that to a person who was not even involved in the conversation. You just keep on keeping on, Thomas. Just leave me out of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
29-08-2012, 07:34 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 10:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 10:39 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Says can not, not thou shalt not. Its stating that the two disciplines have nothig to say in each others fields, just because some religious folks make fact based claims eronously, niether means that science can now make faith based claims or that there errors make the statement incorrect.

I never said anything about science making faith-based claims. What would that even mean?

Gould was trying to define away the problem, but was unsuccessful. Religions all make claims about the natural world, all of which are subject to test.

Never said you did. But your claiming that because the religious dont act inaccord with the statement it becomes invalid. That like saying because astrologers invalidate astronomy. All Gould is saying is no amount of faithful assertion makes a scientic fact and that you cant use science to examine what cant be observered or tested. Not that the idea is Goulds, thats been self evident for centuries.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: