You don't need faith to believe in empiricism, that's the pointI define 'faith' as 'believing in something impossible for which there is no proof' and then I further define it as 'insanity'. Dawkins is no lunatic, though I will concede he's pretty fundamental. But then I'm pretty hardline myself.
(
emvee cruor deo cruoris,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:45,
archived)
You see, where you are going wrong is that you do not know what faith is."believing in something impossible for which there is no proof" is stupidity.
"believing in something for which there is no proof" is faith.
The conclusion that our worldview does not need transempirical support does not hold water once one begins questioning beyond our current ability to test. Asking questions which are beyond our present abilities is not madness, it is theorising and yes, science needs empiricism, but speculation is not at fault.
Dawkins does not adhere to radical empircalism, but allows for speculation, but he has decided, for whatever reason, to highlight any philosophical or scientific postulation which includes a deity as automatically wrong. What he does by this is declare any non deity based idea as correct and he does it in a manner which is fundamentalist.
As long as there are questions which there are not evidence for the answers to it will be a matter of faith to subscribe to any of those answers.
("believing in something for which there is no proof" is faith.
The conclusion that our worldview does not need transempirical support does not hold water once one begins questioning beyond our current ability to test. Asking questions which are beyond our present abilities is not madness, it is theorising and yes, science needs empiricism, but speculation is not at fault.
Dawkins does not adhere to radical empircalism, but allows for speculation, but he has decided, for whatever reason, to highlight any philosophical or scientific postulation which includes a deity as automatically wrong. What he does by this is declare any non deity based idea as correct and he does it in a manner which is fundamentalist.
As long as there are questions which there are not evidence for the answers to it will be a matter of faith to subscribe to any of those answers.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:25,
archived)