March

[Spider Lad]

AAAAAAANYWAY

Did anyone read the press release quotes from the leader of Islam4UK shortly after the ban was announced? Some very thinly veiled threats contained. If the leader of the party attempting to get public acceptance is talking this way you can be pretty much assured that other members are alot less 'restrained' than he.

[manuel]

It's not quite that simple though. Often scientists attempt to extend their practice into the area of religion, politics, etc. This usually relates to a mentality which similarly defines faith within religion and thus we can say of scientists that they act in ways toward their practice that religion is criticised for by science and science is therefore being religious in that sense. It's a great irony.

edit: forgot to actually complete what I was saying before

then thats not true science is it...

[1a2bcio8]

Please back this 'often' up.

I think what you're noticing is religious people seeing that science explains our existence and place in the universe far better than the creation stories and solipsism of scriptures and are then having to defend the science against religious outcry.

Yes, of course scientists need motives to begin enquiry but if the evidence proves otherwise then they accept that. That is the beauty of science. This simply does not happen in religion. Scientists don't manipulate the facts to prove a previously held belief (which I might add is what is happening with regards to 'scientists' proving creation).

Please feel free to take a look at the writer I've been trying to refer you to for a wealth of evidence regarding the position I'm putting forward: Mary Midgley - "Evolution as a Religion", in addition to many of her other works which are similarly themed. I remember the general argument but not the specific instances that I'm refering to - I read the book a couple of years ago. I do recall how those scientists sounded however and that prominent scientists such as Dawkins (regarding his "selfish gene") were involved in this analysis. Despite the fact that I've got the book sat next to me, I'm not really in the mood to look through and find those specific instances to quote.

The trouble with evidence, and by this I assume you mean empirical evidence, is that science isn't constiuated just by that. It certainly emphasises empirical evidence and rightly so, but the practice of science also incorporates the complexities of the human condition. Assumption within inductive and deductive reasoning, the subjugation of reason to emotional desire (to a greater or lesser extent) and so on are integral to evidence through observation. This can all lead to faith, confusion, misconception, etc.

I'm with you on so called scientific creationism as a fallacy though. That's actually an awesome example of how reason can be subjugated to emotional desire. The trouble is, 'secular' scientists are open to the very same problem. The motivations with a God are just more readily recognised the more subtle motivations of 'straight' scientists.

[beigemaster]

Concepts that are also found outside of religion and not wholly attributable to religion.

Please back this 'often' up.

I think what you're noticing is religious people seeing that science explains our existence and place in the universe far better than the creation stories and solipsism of scriptures and are then having to defend the science against religious outcry.

Yes, of course scientists need motives to begin enquiry but if the evidence proves otherwise then they accept that. That is the beauty of science. This simply does not happen in religion. Scientists don't manipulate the facts to prove a previously held belief (which I might add is what is happening with regards to 'scientists' proving creation).

So obviously you missed my point about examples such as the reformation when Christianity radically changed its ideas and values by affectively becoming a lot less religious. Or how about the different interpretations and translations of the Bible? The variant ideas of the medieval philosophers or the different denominations and sects within Christianity? If Christianity (and other religions) is not subject to change from new evidence or ideas, then why is there not simply one global ideal?

With regards to backing up the claim of some of the dogmatic attitudes of sciene, lets take "The God Delusion” as an example. I really respect Dawkins as a scientist but as soon as he opens his mouth outside of his field of science, all I hear is the loud palm slap of 100's of critically minded atheists. Some of the arguments in "The God Delusion" are (to be generous) laughable to any real philosophical thinker (especially those who are atheists), some of his arguments (ironically) are almost as pathetic as the creationist nutters he's criticising. His dogmatic faith in sciences abilities are highlighted in some of his unreasonable nonsense. I believe this is the type of attitude that Ben and myself are trying to highlight.

If you don't believe me, let me cite a quote from John Cottingham, Prof of Philosophy at Reading on "The God Delusion"

Unfortunately, however, Dawkins seems more interested in polemics than in careful scrutiny of arguments. His discussions of the traditional proofs for God’s existence are lamentably scrappy— the first three of Aquinas’s Five Ways, for example, are dismissed en bloc in two pages whose cavalier abruptness will be embarrassing even to Dawkins’s most ardent fans; and the ontological argument, whose logic has fascinated atheist philosophers as eminent as Bertrand Russell, is shrugged off as “infantile … logomachist trickery.” Whether these various traditional arguments are valid or not is beside the point. The point is that Dawkins’s blatant failure to give them a decent hearing hardly serves the cause of impartial scientific fairness that he professes to uphold.

Edited January 14, 2010 by beigemaster

[Spider Lad]

So you're not actually able to quote The God Delusion yourself, just somebody elses critique of it, one that is very short on quotes itself.

I've tried to bring this back round to the original topic and I'm bored of this so I won't be checking back on this thread anymore.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Spider Lad

[beigemaster]

I apologise for not backing up with quotes. To be honest I don't have the time right now to go through the entire book with critical commentary (nor I'm sure would anybody have the time and patience to read it) but then to be fair, pretty much none of the sweeping statements on this forum that attacks certain religious principles are backed up by quotes, citations or even reasons. Hence I quoted from a Prof of Philosophy (which we can assume is going to be not only rather bright but also open minded) to back up my point. The quote was only a short section from a long review which I could post up if you really want to read the whole thing.

I’ll try and help get the thread back on it's original topic. Here is a rather amusing article all about Anjem Choudary, the guy behind the scenes of the Islam4UK march, quite an amusing read.

[1a2bcio8]

Yeah we did kind've hijack the thread. Sorry about that. I think I'm pretty much done with it as well to be honest, anyway. Long posts are tiring but it's been fun as always