Re: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautio...

Dawkins doen't argue that God can be disproven by science, but he does
maintain (I believe it's one of the chapter titles in TGD) that God almost
certainly does not exist. Furthermore, as I understand it, he is supporting
sending anti-religious material to British schools (to counter the material
sent by Truth In Science).

Iain

On 1/28/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
> > PvM wrote:
> >
> >
> > Note that 1. the issue was not about censorship 2. the issue was not
> > about religion per se.
> >
> >
> > It seems from the exchanges that 1. it is (though I'm not clear this is
> > a genuine case of censorship as such) and on 2. I was mainly
> > responding to what you said....
>
> What part exactly suggests that this was about censorship.
>
> > > When atheists start a movement which insists that science can show the
> > > absence of a designer, it is time to object similarly to such an abuse
> > > of science.
> >
> > Actually, I don't think you actually mean what you said here. If this
> were
> > the case, then even "The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of
> > evolution reveals a universe without design" already meets what you
> > wrote without quoting another word. But I think what you meant to say
> > (and how I first read it) was "to prove God does not exist". But this
> is
> > also a little problematical these days with titles such as "The God
> > Delusion". I have not read this one, but so far, the comments from
> others
> > are consistent with my past impressions of his less strident
> > writings that I have read.
>
> One may have to more carefully read Dawkins to come to realize that he
> is not arguing that science can disprove 'God'. Even quoting the
> Blindwatch maker's title does little to meet the requirement as
> correctly interpreted by you as ''disproving God"
>
> >
> > I've also spent some time on skeptic lists. I got enough of the view
> > that "the world will finally be a beautiful place if only we could lop
> out
> > that thing in the brain". Well, who knows, I suppose we wait on the
> > second coming, though at least we are trusting God and not man.
> > But as to lopping things off, I suppose castration may some benefits
> > too.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps if you can quote from Dawkins then we can see what Dawkins et
> al.
> > driving at.
> >
> >
> >
> > Did you really see me as such a duff that I would dare to
> > comment on Dawkins without ever having read _at least_ one
> > of his books in my whole life?
>
> I did not say this. I was hoping for some actual quotes that would
> allow us to determine what Dawkins really has said. I too had read a
> lot of Dawkins, and I also believed that Dawkins went across the line,
> so to speak. And yet, in discussions I have come to realize that
> Dawkins' claims are far less controversial than they may at first
> appear, and that certainly he is not arguing that God can be
> proven/disproven by science. Which is what ID claims to be showing.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.