9 Comments

  1. Know More Than I Should

    While science can be a religion, unlike traditional Western religion, science is forever changing. Yesterday’s wisdom can easily become tomorrow’s buffoonery. This is generally considered to be an anathema in religion.
    .
    Religious precepts are seldom subjected to the same scrutiny as scientific theories. In may instances, testing is not even possible. Perhaps the classic example in this regard is proving (or disproving) the existence of God.
    .
    Despite the differences, there are instances where religion and biology are thoroughly in sync. The creation of new life is one of those. Were this not the case, birth control would have never been invented.

    Reply

    1. which is why Dawkins who denies any positive-ness to religion is a fundamentalist. He, even as a scientist, doesn’t allow change.

      Reply
    1. Know More Than I Should

      Perhaps God could improve the world by cutting lifespans. Since Jesus only lived on this earth to be in his early 30s, that might be a nice place to start. Of course, the number could always be reduced from there.

      Reply
    2. Jens Knudsen (Sili)

      I don’t think he’s thought that quip through, since he didn’t get ordained till he got older.

      Reply
      1. Gary

        Except Polkinghorne probably didn’t need higher math as an Anglican priest. Unless he was investigating multi-dimensional Hilbert space as the location of heaven and hell 😉

        Reply
  2. Know More Than I Should

    Raised as an Anglican, Dawkins may simply have the same aversion to religion as a reformed smoker dealing with those still addicted to nicotine.

    Reply
  3. Jens Knudsen (Sili)

    Dawkins approaches belief systems like a fundamentalist.

    As do most believers. The common complaint about the (not at all) New Atheists, is that they haven’t read any sophisticated theology.

    We don’t really care, since neither have most believers. If the people in the pews, the bigots opposing equal right, were using sophisticated theology as the basis for their hatred, we would argue against that sophistimacation. As long as it’s fundamentalisms that cause the trouble, we’re happy attack a fundamentalist form of religion.

    Alternatively: If Dawkins isn’t arguing against your religion, why are you complaining?

    There are plenty of problems with Dawkins, but his proficiency in theology is not one of them.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!