responses to my words on Mr R Dawkins

1.
'It is simply inadequate.'

Translation: Any answer is better than no answer.

I'm sorry if you are not satisfied that we can't fully explain everything in this wonderful, natural world just yet. But I promise, we're working very hard on it.

Your God of the Gaps is quickly running out of places to hide. And the youth of this world, like me and all my friends, are fully aware of the BS that religions the world over have been fermenting for eons. All these silly religions are headed for the waste bin of history where they belong. And the world will be a better place for it!

Cheers!
-------
my response:
Darron S,

I am a scientist and I have no doubt at all that Science will never ever be able to explain any more than a small part of what we perceive. That is it's track record. For example, no-one can ever know what is actually present and going on in a single teaspoon of living soil. It is beyond our ken.

Also, data that does not easily fit theory is rejected as a matter of training. We are trained as Scientists to seek data that fits theory, and reject data that does not fit theory.

That Science is a belief system was well documented by Thomas Kuhn in his seminal tome, 'the nature of scientific revolutions.' He called the scientific top-dog theory a 'paradigm' (indeed, he defined this meaning) and said the current theory stays until a mew, better one arrives.

Indeed, this is to be expected as Science grew out of the Christian tradition and so reflects theological concerns with written evidence, right-thinking and peer review. Science is an 'imprimatur' driven creed.

One day, the history of science tells us, evolutionary biology will cease to be top dog. In Physics we have seen the rise and fall of many models of reality in the course of several thousand years (even in the past century Einstein's work has been seen to be inadequate.)

As to Dawkins, to quote Shakespeare: methinks you do protest too much.

As to 'any answer is better than no answer.' Really? Ever tried that in an examination and seen if you get marks?

==========

2.
Clearly you have excelled in what Prof. Dawkins regards as child abuse. As a roman catholic no doubt you think 'a good job' in indoctrinating your young daughter to reject even the study of evolution as an alternative to your own 'belief' system,.

If evolution is indeed a belief it, at least, is a scientific belief whereas your belief is a theological one.

The difference is that the former is supported by a body of evidence which can be questioned, tested, verified and in some areas changed and discarded in light of new research adding to the body of evidence.

Religious belief, on the other hand, is purely based on faith with no support of evidence.

What evolution shows is that it is unnecessary to postulate the existence of a god or other 'super' being or power to explain the diversity and beauty of life and the natural world we see all around us.

Sad that truth and knowledge is so easily side-stepped for the sake of dogma.
-------
my response:
Vigilant Watcher,

Mmmm. Many, many straw men. A quite unscientific tirade, may I say. This is the problem with defenders of Scientism; they so easily become abusive and hurtful in defence of their ideas. It's a like reading religious fundamentalism.

To take your points, nonetheless. Almost nobody accepts Dawkins definition of child abuse; this is from the school of Humpty Dumpty definitions (no, this is not abuse, check your Lewis Carroll).

I accept your statement that evolution is a belief, but not your definition of religious belief. Perhaps I have an advantage being a Scientist, formerly an atheist and now a Christian. I know where you are coming from, but I would suggest you lack enough information on the nature of religious belief and are tilting at windmills.

Something to consider: if evolution is, as we agree, a belief system. That is, something that cannot be 100% proved beyond doubt. Then, what if you are wrong? For, if I am right in my belief system, then you are destined for eternity in hell and I for heaven. Again, this is not abuse, just a straight position of comparative belief systems.

===========

3. This is simply a brilliant piece and I congratulate you on it.

I have been chary of Dawkins's diatribes for over 20 years since his television series where he charged round the world seeking the most arcane Christian religious practices and turning to camera at the end to say 'See, there is no God.'

In all his 'proofs' that there is no God there's seems to be be no logic. And the points about the logic underpinning Dawkinsian evolution are the great mass of assumptions he takes for fact.

But in the argument over proofs there is one fact quite missed by Dawkinsians, which is perhaps the ultimate failure of logic ;-).

Science and logic are specifically - and by definition - about the material world which can be seen felt measured and subjected to testing.

Religious belief, God and arcane matters [Dawkins latest target with his friend French] are by definition not material. Ideas that materialist proof systems can be applied to the proof or disproof of God are therefore fundamentally illogical. Not to mention that there is actually no conflict between a process of development and the existence of God.

Were I drinking, John, I would raise my glass to you.

Joseph Harris
-------
my response:

The glass to raise is the covenant wine of His blood. Let us drink this always in memory of Him who died, rose again and will return to judge the living and the dead. For I am a simple servant of God, as are you. We are no better than Darron or VW (anon) above.

It's an inadequate analogy, but before I read Evelyn Waugh I did not know that written English could be so sublime. Before I met the Living Christ I had no idea that God was, or that He is love.

To those who have not yet met Jesus Christ I can only say: insufficient data, more research required!