...
Logic and reason have brought us Nuclear Proliferation, Global Warming, and the Credit Crunch, each of these caused by some of the smartest people on the planet.
That's a really, really poor argument. Noone intended for any of those things to happen. Nor is anyone claiming that the alternative to belief in god is a belief that humanity is flawless.
Even Dawkins does not say outright that god does not exist. His claim is simply that the existence of a deity is hugely unlikely, and that there is no evidence for it. We're much better off not believing in him for reasons of metaphysical good taste. Moreover, naturalistic science can offer an explanation of the world that's much more metaphysically parsimonious and complete. So we have a reason to adopt naturalistic science.
Give a compelling argument the other way, and science ought to adop it, just because it is not based on a predetermined picture of the universe.
Moreover, your claim belies a value-intoxicated view of the world. Nuclear proliferation, global warming and so on are arguably bad from a human point of view, but it follows from that neither that they are bad, or that they are wrong.
What do you mean by believing in people? I simply can't make sense of that.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 11:35,
Reply)
Don't feign a lack of comprehention as a disputational gambit with me boyo ;)
Of course my closing remark was sophistry and we could play the game of poking holes at each other all day long (and I think we'd both enjoy it).
We're discussing a whole area that has been hotly debated by plenty of folks cleverer than us (an likely a lot more less so) for most of history without resolution.
My motivation in jumping in at all was to point out how this whole area of debate is polarising, as it seems to be with us here now. I consider myself a moderate, but can you see how in discussing it I am being pushed to either agree with you entirely, or to fall to countering your Scientific certainties with certainties of Faith.
Surely as the only outcome of taking an extreme view on either side is conflict. And while here today its just a bit of stimulating fun (I hope) for both of us, There are plenty who are more emotionally invested in their position that each conflict escalates from flaming on message boards through advertisements on buses until we reach a point where we are burning down churches and bombing science labs.
Who wins then? (well, if you are a bit Goatish, then the Rich White Elite win.)
As for me, I think of myself as a Fundamental Moderate: I believe that we all have a duty to defend the rights of our neighbours, even when they are are being dicks, as long as what they are doing does not hurt anyone else. This of course means that I get hit from both sides, from Atheists the accusation that I am illogical, and that my beliefs hurt progress, tomorrow I may get into a dispute with a fundamentalist Christian who will tell me I'm a sinner and will burn. Hey Ho.
(, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 12:11, Reply)
that's possibly the best answer i've read so far in one of these B3ta /links theological arguments.
well done sah!
*doffs cap*
(
Just Flange, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 12:51,
Reply)