Why I don't recommend Dawkins?????

[_Hoops]

While you're wiping away your tears, and maybe mommy can get you into your jammies and a new binkie, you can cite an example. Now get on your booster seat and furiously do your internet search.

Here you go:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Where in this do they "deny" science? Or is your usual half-assed bluster all we're gonna get.

[_Buffalo]

Where in this do they "deny" science? Or is your usual half-assed bluster all we're gonna get.

They're talking about correcting carbon dating for the effects of the flood. :D

Half-assed bluster is your specialty, Hoops. Own it.

[_Phillip]

Marg,

You keep asserting that theism has no explanatory power but it does. It offers an explaination of why there is a universe and why that universe has the broad form it does. It does so in a philosophically sophisticated manner that to some of us at least is coherent. The main competing explaination seems to be "the universe is just there, that's all"

In general, religion doesn't really explain it at all. It just adds another step.

Q: "Why is there a universe?"
A: "God made it."
Q: "Why is there a god?"
A: "God is just there, that's all."

Not much of an explanation.

You are getting to the heart of the matter, namely, does the God explanation help unify disparate facts or provide additional insight into the nature of things? Does God seem somehow less contingent than the observable universe? If not, then God would just be another unneeded step. But theists do argue that there is value-added in proposing a God. And some theologians at least attempt to move beyond 'God is just there, that's all' with various arguments for the necessity of God, even if you may not find those arguments convincing. I'm probably not the best person to give those arguments since I am a relative newcomer to theology and philosophy and still have lots of reading to do. And if I do end up joining the atheist camp one day (God forbid), I want to first be exposed to the best that the theists can offer. Even as an atheist I think I would still acknowledge that theists are not all irrationally committed to blind faith and that they do put forward serious, if flawed, justifications for their beliefs.

At the end of the day I think that it is healthy for both theists and atheists that their respective opponents exist. It forces both sides to rexamine their assumptions and reasoning, and to more clearly articulate their own worldview.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Good observation there Phillip. The “Who designed the designer” objection looks over the fact that Theists are positing something that is necessary, and not contingent.

[_Buffalo]

Good observation there Phillip. The “Who designed the designer” objection looks over the fact that Theists are positing something that is necessary, and not contingent.

And what's that?

[_MrStakhanovite]

And what's that?

God. In most systems, God is necessary and not contingent on something else.

[Guest]

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, fundamentalist churches (of which the LDS church is a stellar example) conflicts with science, therefore religion conflicts with science. I couldn't possibly see any logical holes in that argument.

The only thing missing is to make the Harris-esque maneuver that only fundamentalists are valid as a religion. Moderate, liberal, and even many conservative churches are at best fake religions, or at worst aiding and abetting fundamentalist terrorism.

Seriously, this is why Stak is telling you people to get a little education on religion before spouting off. At best you make strawman arguments, at worst you come off looking ignorant.

Edited: changed "fundamentalist churches (of which the LDS church is a stellar example) conflicts with churches" to "fundamentalist churches (of which the LDS church is a stellar example) conflicts with science" which I hope was obvious to all was my original intention.

I have explained very carefully, and with examples, why the ways in which beliefs are formed in religion are diametrically opposed to the way in which beliefs are formed in science.

Let me do so yet again.

Scientific belief (knowledge) is fact based and is gained through the collection of physical evidence by observation and experimentation, followed by hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing using logic and reason considering the available evidence, hypothesis evaluation, comparison and selection, further testing and refinement of the hypothesis, and determination of the predictive power of the hypothesis when applied to new data.

In this process when a hypothesis fails to explain the available data or shows no predictive power when tested against new data, it needs to be substantially revised and re-tested or simply discarded.

Religious beliefs are faith based and are gained from the passing down of superstitions and myth, reading and recounting of tall tales, promptings of the "spirit", pronouncements of religious leaders, dreams, and visions. These beliefs are "confirmed" by emotions and subjective feelings.

In this process, when beliefs fail, they are either de-emphasized, denied, or continue to be supported based on faith rather than on demonstrated utility or value.

Please note that this description does not depend upon whether a religionists is a fundamentalist, or whether a scientist goes to Church, it simply describes the way in which belief is formed under the two opposing paradigms.

If you cannot understand the differences, and why the two sets of means and methods of determining beliefs are diametrically opposed, then you need to read more about religion, more about science, or both.

[_Buffalo]

And what's that?

God. In most systems, God is necessary and not contingent on something else.

In which case, use of god creator of the universe adds precisely nothing of value. Might as well skip a step and say universes are necessary and not contingent on something else.

[_Some Schmo]

While you're wiping away your tears, and maybe mommy can get you into your jammies and a new binkie, you can cite an example. Now get on your booster seat and furiously do your internet search.

Sure, I could do a search and find an outrageous number of examples, but I don't see the payoff. Only a complete idiot would deny what I said (and only an idiot would keep talking the way you do to me, but I digress).

So I'm going to go with the Stak response to marg and dismiss you as the idiot you clearly are. There's economy in that (not to mention how appropriate it is in your case).

[_MrStakhanovite]

In which case, use of god creator of the universe adds precisely nothing of value.

It would add value when building a Metaphysic for a worldview.

Might as well skip a step and say universes are necessary and not contingent on something else.

Which has been a topic for some time, and the source of a lot of debate. Can a Naturalistic worldview account for everything? Not yet, plus you have to come with good reasons to take a Naturalistic worldview as opposed to a Theistic one, that doesn't rule out Theism a priori.

We bring a lot of a priori baggage to science that we can never hope to empirically verify.