The idea that one human being can know enough about the nature of the universe to make the sweeping declarations Dawkins' makes is preposterous to me, and no more credible than the sweeping declarations of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. To me, that's the flaw in all of his work, from The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion. He is certainly intelligent, and writes as such, but he lacks wisdom and imagination. As such, pursuits like Dawkins' often boil down to one type of faith (in "reason") vs. The existence or non-existence of a God cannot be proven, nor can the existence or non-existence of a soul, and faith is an abstract experience with implications that are fundamentally unresponsive to study. Fundamentalists of all faiths scare me, and atheism is just as much a faith as any religion. I do not believe in a God, certainly not any God that's been conceived by man, but I also believe Richard Dawkins is a self-satisfied thought-Nazi who is as fundamental in his view of religion as any right-wing minister. To date the core theories of this book have not been proven wrong, and are therefore considered to be true as far as we know right now.Didactic, patronizing, condescending and arguably neo-intellectual twaddle. The science community welcomes your input if it follows these rules, because that's the way forward." But please, if you think differently, set up a rational, testable and repeatable way to prove this theory wrong. Science simply says "This is true as far as we can tell right now. We have theories, and "theory" does not mean "guesswork" - it means "the best understanding that we currently have of the nature of reality." It's a "theory" because in science there's always the possibility of disproving a theory, but the wonderful thing is, a disproven theory teaches us even more about reality and nature by supplanting the theory with a better one.Īt almost no point does science say "this is an absolute truth" because that is incredibly conceited - ANYONE that tells you they know an absolute truth is probably selling something. Almost nothing in science is "proven" - that's not how science works.
I assume you mean "not proven" and "not law" - but even that misunderstands science.
I assume you mean "not proven" and "not law" - but even …more Words like "it's not true" and "just theory" belie a deep misunderstanding of what science is. John Words like "it's not true" and "just theory" belie a deep misunderstanding of what science is.
0 kommentar(er)
