On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> Dawkins ?problem? is that he treats everything scientifically. There is
> evidence for the basic facts in science, and there is no evidence for
> anything in religion. Even the fundamentals of religion often times can?t
> be coherently explained (trinity, soul, image of God, etc.). Dawkins has a
> posture of ?no BS allowed? so things based on faith-only are rejected. Yes,
> science also proceeds based on faith, on the outer and leading edges, but it
> is based upon facts as a platform. Not so with any religious creed. All
> the so-called ?arguments for God? are really an appeal to ?god of the
> gaps.? Where did it all come from? How did life evolve? Where did morals
> come from (or anything objective, such as numbers and math)? No one knows-
> glory to ?god of the gaps!?
Bernie,
Do you have a very narrow definition of religion when you say that there
is no evidence for anything in religion? Do you reject Biblical
archeology?
Are you saying that we don't know where numbers and math come from? Is
there any mystery as to where tautologies come from?
Gordon Brown (ASA member)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 26 15:11:45 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 26 2009 - 15:11:45 EST