Excellent article, methinks I need to get some of the books this gent has written, as, if current trends prevail, in 10 years evolution will be a word that is only whispered in private homes in America by fearful non-believers living in the Theocratic Bible States of America.
Cool little article from Richard Dawkins
by Gollum 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
hooberus
The following may help those who wish to know what the Kansas situation is about:
-
seattleniceguy
For me, the creationist appeal to ignorance has always been very disturbing. The fact of the matter is that a lack of knowledge proves nothing except that you don't know the answer.
To understand this, let's imagine a friend named Bob, whose career is unknown to us. What conclusions can we draw from this lack of knowledge? Not many. Try it out yourself: "We don't even know what Bob does for a living. Therefore, he is unemployed." Nope. "We don't know what Bob does for a living. Therefore, he is a doctor!" No again. In actual fact, the lack of knowledge provides us with no basis to make any kind of conclusion at all. The only conceivable conclusion we could come to has little to do with Bob: "We don't know what Bob does for a living. Therefore, if we want to get some data on this, we need to increase our reconaissance efforts."
Creationists resort to the exact same logic error, something we might call deduction through ignorance. The most common form is something like, "We don't even know how the brain works! Therefore, it was designed by God." But as you can see, it is a total non-sequitur. The only valid conclusion that we could draw from lack of knowledge is that we need to do more research, or else we will stay ignorant.
As Dawkins points out, creationists revel in not knowing. As a person who thrives on discovery, it was this fact that pushed my subconscious away from the Witnesses and toward science.
Very interesting article. I think this Dawkins fellow might be on to something. :-)
SNG
-
SixofNine
To understand this, let's imagine a friend named Bob, whose career is unknown to us. What conclusions can we draw from this lack of knowledge? Not many. Try it out yourself: "We don't even know what Bob does for a living. Therefore, he is unemployed." Nope. "We don't know what Bob does for a living. Therefore, he is a doctor!" No again. In actual fact, the lack of knowledge provides us with no basis to make any kind of conclusion at all. The only conceivable conclusion we could come to has little to do with Bob: "We don't know what Bob does for a living. Therefore, if we want to get some data on this, we need to increase our reconaissance efforts."
I make a similar point by saying that almost anytime anyone begins a sentence with the word "god" (in this case, much like "bob"), they are about to engage in either outright, or at the very least, intellectual, dishonesty.
-
stevenyc
Dawkins is always entertaining to read.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad a few years back.(not sure if I've mentioned this before)
We were studied together for the watchtower study and one section was on the proof of God.
I asked him, 'How can you prove God exists?'
His reply, with an uncomplimentry frown developing across his forehead, was, 'well you can the proof in all the evidence around you. In the trees, flowers, birds, the universe and all that shit.'
My reply, 'well dad, thats not proof thats a matter of faith.'
My dad reply, a slap and sent to my room.
Go figure.
steve
-
stillajwexelder
wheras the root word for science is "to know" implying knowledge that is why I just love science - the truth and searching foor it sets us free. For example it is obviouos to me that ieven the most ignorant Christian if he reads the bible and does some extra research without any preconceived ideas would come to the conclusion that a loving God would not torture people in an eternal hellfire - that is a man made doctrine invented by the Greeks principally Plato
-
patio34
Thanks for that article! I just ordered his new book Ancestor Tales and am really looking forward to it. It's written in the style of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Very entertaining, yet educational.
Pat
-
Gollum
Hooberus,
I went to the Answers in Genesis website. Didn't read specifically about the Kansas situation, since I know about that. However, I found this article which I thought was interesting:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
In it he makes this statement:
Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.
So, he is making a pretty clear cut comment that no matter what evidence is presented, if it goes against his literal interpetation of the bible, then it is meaningless. Now, that's a philosophical stand, and I admire him for being upfront about it, as opposed to most if not all of the ID crowd, but it's not science. It's not even close to science. It's like showing up on American Idol and expecting to win by carving a sculpture. That person's not playing the same game as everybody else, and while I may admire the dadist aspect of it, it doesn't accomplish anything. For that same reason I'm not going to pay any attention to someone in a scientific debate that takes this stand. They aren't playing the same game as everybody else on the stage. I might have a philosophical or theological debate with them, but not a scientific one, since they completly ignore the rules and groundwork that science is based on.
-
Satanus
Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious.
On the other hand; when some generally sane people have related some wierd, mysterious type of experiences here, some scientific types have flat out told them that what they said happened, did not, in fact happen to them. Some science types also would like to keep the unexplainable from being brought out into the open.
S