I am firmly agnostic, not atheist; I have no idea if there really is a God, and am not ashamed to admit it. Some days I feel there may be; other days I feel the opposite. But the truth is that neither I nor anyone else will ever know for sure.
But even those who are sure of God's existence from their personal experience may not a) provide scientific proof (science can only prove physical phenomenon) or b) use language to describe their experience to others. Hence discussions between intelligent atheists and theists will always produce more heat than light.
Thanks Hobbs, but the piece doesn't suggest that should believe in God, only that the use of scientific proof to disprove God is nonsensical. If Dawkins believes in truth he should recognise the limits of scientific claims.
But here in lies the quandary. One set of principles, doctrine, dogma relies on faith, trust or blind faith, the other on scientific evidence that can be scrutinized, challenged, proved wrong or correct, or advanced, constantly seeking to disprove or reaffirm an idea or theory. To be very fair, or to be very honest, they are of two different , if i may be so bold to say this, two different theologies.
They should not be compared. And I will use this small analogy. Go into Indigo or any bookstore, there is a reason why the books on science are not on the same shelves as relgion , or cooking, gardening, engineering.....
Two different domains, that some people try to intertwine. Sometimes to prove that they are smart? That they are right, or just for the sake of a Good argument,or to get under peoples tits?
I like the bookshop analogy: when scientists talk about the domain of faith they don't have the conceptual tools to speak meaningfully. When theocrats talk about politics they are equally ignorant.
But to be clear, belief in God may not be blind faith. There may be evidence. But it is personal, non-empirical evidence. It is what you know but can't share through language.
I am firmly agnostic, not atheist; I have no idea if there really is a God, and am not ashamed to admit it. Some days I feel there may be; other days I feel the opposite. But the truth is that neither I nor anyone else will ever know for sure.
But even those who are sure of God's existence from their personal experience may not a) provide scientific proof (science can only prove physical phenomenon) or b) use language to describe their experience to others. Hence discussions between intelligent atheists and theists will always produce more heat than light.
Very true. I am no fan of anyone who is certain, on either side. The only truly honest answer is uncertainty.
Thanks Hobbs, but the piece doesn't suggest that should believe in God, only that the use of scientific proof to disprove God is nonsensical. If Dawkins believes in truth he should recognise the limits of scientific claims.
Thank you Daniel
But here in lies the quandary. One set of principles, doctrine, dogma relies on faith, trust or blind faith, the other on scientific evidence that can be scrutinized, challenged, proved wrong or correct, or advanced, constantly seeking to disprove or reaffirm an idea or theory. To be very fair, or to be very honest, they are of two different , if i may be so bold to say this, two different theologies.
They should not be compared. And I will use this small analogy. Go into Indigo or any bookstore, there is a reason why the books on science are not on the same shelves as relgion , or cooking, gardening, engineering.....
Two different domains, that some people try to intertwine. Sometimes to prove that they are smart? That they are right, or just for the sake of a Good argument,or to get under peoples tits?
I like the bookshop analogy: when scientists talk about the domain of faith they don't have the conceptual tools to speak meaningfully. When theocrats talk about politics they are equally ignorant.
But to be clear, belief in God may not be blind faith. There may be evidence. But it is personal, non-empirical evidence. It is what you know but can't share through language.
I'll come back to personal experience as evidence in Book 2!