Comments on: why science is not a faith

By: neilgodfrey

neilgodfrey — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:58:12 +0000

Interesting thing is, when we turn to the good scriptures to learn how the devil really works, we discover that he holds out temptations to make grand claims for one’s position by ignoring the evidence of the real world.

He attempted to persuade Jesus to ignore the reality of gravity and the composition of stone in order to prove he was God’s chosen one.

If that tells me anything, it is that William Lane Craig has, unlike Jesus, succumbed to the temptations of the devil to ignore reality in the interests of his exalted claims of how close he is to God.

By: Vinny

Vinny — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:01:23 +0000

Well said. Your post inspired me to contrast Dawkins comments with William Lane Craig’s assertions that he would disregard evidence that undercuts his position as tricks of the devil in a post titled “Reason and Faith: Craig v. Dawkins.”

By: neilgodfrey

neilgodfrey — Sun, 04 May 2008 11:55:11 +0000

Live and let live sounds like a nice idea, but I can’t see the possibility of that between, say, the finds of archaeology and biology and those who insist on the literal truth of the Bible.

Ought we have a responsibility to seek to inform and educate against any way of thinking or belief system rooted in ignorance and authoritarianism? Hasn’t that been the way to progress since ancient times?

By: Ishmael

Ishmael — Sat, 03 May 2008 12:59:35 +0000

I suppose if you looked at it seriously, you’d have to come down to what is proof within the relevant domain of discourse. Each side of this particular debate attempts to impose its own definition on the other with at least misleading and at most ludicrous results.

The scientific method (insofar as one adheres to it) is based on interpreting experimentally derived evidence (leaves out most of the “observational” folks but that’s the problem with hard defintions). Interpretations change as new evidence comes to light, new explanations are developed, etc.

Most scientific explanations omit the concept of deity under the rule of parsimony — if you can explain a phenomenon in two ways — one based on observation, experiment and knowledge and the other based on deity (or other supernatural factors), then parsimony obliges one to choose the former. It’s a good rule that works very well in practice.

However, it must be said that there is a great leap of “faith” between “seeing no evidence of deity/supernatural factors” and “there is no deity/are no supernatural factors”. The first is falsifiable under observation and might therefore be called “scientific” while the second is a philosophical/theological position and in therefore in another realm of discourse with its own rules and notions of proof.

Perhaps if both sides of this particular debate would “tend to their knitting” and abandon the idea that a PhD/Dsci/ThD/etc grants them authoritative rights in areas outside their domain of expertise, we could get back to scientists doing science and theologians doing theology.

Now there’s a radical idea! :-)

By: wonderingkiwi

wonderingkiwi — Sat, 03 May 2008 07:05:16 +0000

Nice summary. It seems obvious when you read comments from creationists complaining about Darwin’s writings that they really do think that science is modelled on theological knowledge claims. It’s only if you think knowledge comes from an authoritative text that you think that you can critique evolutionary theory by criticising a 150 year old book.