Is Richard Dawkins Interested in Real Discussion?

I found this interesting interview with Michael Ruse.  In the interview, Ruse accuses Richard Dawkins, and the new atheists, of not engaging in honest discussion over the topics they write so much about.  Watch and tell me what you think.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Atheism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is Richard Dawkins Interested in Real Discussion?

  1. Ben A says:

    You touch on one of my passions, Tim. Many scientists around the globe refuse to recognize philosophy, religion, and ethics as vital components to their work.

    Many scientists have worked without mathematics. They yielded good ideas without quantifiable data — making someone else go through their work again and put math to it.

    Many scientists have refused to incorporate physics in their work, yielding an incomplete picture at how something occurs (such as in biology or chemistry).

    Some have forgotten about thermodynamics, yielding incomplete equations or illogical events.

    In the same way, a massive aspect is missing in science when theology, philosophy and ethics are left out.

    They can declare an aetheistic approach, but generally, many scientists won’t.

    It’s sad that there cannot be discussion. But there isn’t room for discussion between two parties who are so adamantly against each other’s religion that they are unwilling to truly listen to the opposing side.

    Let’s be honest. Most Christians aren’t going to buy into aetheistic science. And most aetheistic scientists won’t buy into any form of God.

  2. Tim Farley says:

    Thanks Ben. I agree that most atheists will not buy into any form of God or a designer and that theists will not buy into any form of atheistic science. My biggest issue is that Dawkins and others want us to believe that their’s is the only valid approach to interpreting the data. If you do not fall in line with their thinking, you are just stupid.

  3. Ben A says:

    It’s funny* how it all comes down to name-calling. It’s like the old history lessons they tell about old scientists and writers calling each other this and that.

    * by funny, I mean sad, unfortunate, and perhaps a little ironic.

  4. aaron says:

    Let’s be fair and honest. science in measurable and quantifiable. You prove scientific theory by working to disprove it. Chritianity, does the opposite, you are not allowed to disprove it and you can not prove it. God can not be measured, seen, or investigated.

    We rely on the exact same Dawkins science when you need medicine, clean water, an ultrasound, a safe building to pray in. Gravity is accepted in the US and China alike. The speed of the earth is the same regards what god you pray to.

    Ben, I promise the 10 commandments had no play in keeping TIm’s wife and daughter safe during child labor and the understanding of gravity has no bearing on the a virgin birth.

    What I love, is science can never prove how the universe was created just as Christians can never prove how God became. There is something poetic about this

  5. Tim Farley says:

    Aaron:

    What is interesting is that Michael Ruse, the scholar in the interview, is also an atheist. He just disagrees with the arrogance and approach of Dawkins and others.

    Dawkins leaves science and wanders into philosophy and theology very frequently in his claims. He is not just making claims about what he can test and verify.

    Also, exactly what scientific evidence rules out an inteliigent designer? There are many scientists who believe the evidence points to I.D. Should they not at least be able to make their case? Dawkins say “no.”

Comments are closed.