Knocking Dawkins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2012, 08:42 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 07:34 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 10:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Well done. You have misunderstood both Gould and me.

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, 08:44 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 07:34 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 10:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Well done. You have misunderstood both Gould and me.

I said that when religion makes claims about the natural world, that is testable by science.

Gould tried to assert that religion makes no such claims.

I have no idea what your statement about astrologers means.

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
30-08-2012, 02:00 AM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(29-08-2012 08:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 07:34 PM)Humakt Wrote:  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.

Well done. You have misunderstood both Gould and me.

I said that when religion makes claims about the natural world, that is testable by science.

Gould tried to assert that religion makes no such claims.

I have no idea what your statement about astrologers means.

Non-overlapping magisteria
Main article: Non-overlapping magisteria

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to...the supposed conflict between science and religion."[81] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution."[81] The non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover "the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry."[81] He suggests that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that NOMA is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[81]

However, this view has not been without heavy criticism. For example, in his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that the division between religion and science is not as simple as it seems, as few religions exist without claiming the existence of miracles, which "by definition, violate the principles of science".[82] Dawkins also opposes the idea that religion has anything meaningful to say about ethics and values, and therefore has no authority to claim a magisterium of its own.[82]

No your the one misunderstanding Gould, he is saying Science is not equipped to examine the theological and that the theological is not equipped to return the favour.

He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution."

Further, clarifing here - The non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover "the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry."

The fact that the religious choose to try, is not the point, the fact is you cant believe scientific facts into existence - no amount of faith wll overcome gravity. Likewise, no amount of scientific endevour will yield useful results into questions of the spiritual.

He is enfatically not saying its impossable to make nonsence claims ignoring this principle, only that meaning results are not possable.

Gould does not assert that religion doesnt make such claims, he says that they cant from there discipline make useful predictions.

I likewise, have no idea why you insist because some of the religious make unsupportable and erroneous claims that this renders the assertion that there discipline holds no appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution moot.

My reference to astrology, is that they make claims about stars and planets in much the same way as the religious make claims about dinosaurs and the soul. The claims of astrologers, do not render astronomy suddenly wrong, although astronomy says like wise that astrology is not equipped to engage in meaningful discourse.

It is a direct analogy to claiming the religious folks who say meaningless things disqualify what Gould says.

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: