Scientific Antireligiosity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
It’s kind of hard to write because I’ve been walking on my knuckles. My superstitious and ignorant mind believes in things like the resurrection of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture, and so in fear of things I do not understand I have not yet advanced to the conclusions of modern science that God is a left over concept that modern men have grown out of. Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Isaac Asimov are the superior minds who will guide a reformed species (genetically altered, of course) into the glorious future.

Bunk.

Need some effective refutations for Sagan, Dawkins and crew. Need it soon.

Thanks
 
I read somewhere that physical scientists are actually more religious (or more likely to believe in God) than social scientists. Me, I don’t see how a physicist can possibly not believe in God.

You could point out that science clarifies the details but never tells us why. And you could use Occam’s Razor against them. For it is infinitely more simple to explain all of creation and life by invoking God then by any no-God explanation (not that any even exists, of course).
 
truth << Need some effective refutations for Sagan, Dawkins and crew. Need it soon. >>

We’ve discussed Dawkins in here. Your three main books in response to him:

Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller (last 3 chapters or so)
Dawkin’s God by theologian Alister McGrath (Ph.D.'s in theology and biochemistry)
God, Chance, and Necessity by theologian Keith Ward

Interview with Alister McGrath

Q: What do you mean you’re not getting a favorable response? Do you mean from Dawkins himself or from others who are his followers?

A: I am ready to have a public discussion with Richard Dawkins at any time and place he chooses. He knows that.

Q: He refused?

A: Yes.

Looking forward to that!

Of course Dawkin’s new book is [The God Delusion](http://www.richarddawkins.net/ma(name removed by moderator)age.php?bodyPage=godDelusion.php), and I don’t expect his book to answer the above theologians in detail, but I’ll probably get his new book when it comes out in paperback.

Phil P
 
Truthstalker,

C.S. Lewis in his book Miracles has a beautiful proof that “naturalism”–the idea that the supernatural does not exist–is self-contradictory.

Most of what you have cited is simply name-calling. The “scientists” are calling you ignorant and superstitious without examining what you believe and why. I invite anybody who tries this name-calling to examine the historical record: the resurrection of Jesus is the best-documented event in ancient history, we have the shroud He was buried in (and if they try to say “Medieval forgery,” ask how the Medievals had the technology to create the image on the shroud), and the miracle of the sun at Fatima was witnessed by tens of thousands of people including professors, journalists, and skeptics who had come to Fatima for the express purpose of proving that no miracle would take place.

Incidentally, scientific “anti-religiosity” is nothing new. Sir Thomas Browne wrote “Religio Medici” (“A Doctor’s Religion”) in a reaction to this phenomenon some centuries ago.
  • Liberian
 
Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Isaac Asimov

Not your most top-notch scientists in history.

On the whole they were rather shallow thinkers who were opposed to the notion that religion has anything to say about science, but very much in favor of the notion that science has everything to say about religion.

In other words:

“You can’t indict Galileo, but we can indict Jesus Christ.”
 
Truthstalker said:
It’s kind of hard to write because I’ve been walking on my knuckles. My superstitious and ignorant mind believes in things like the resurrection of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture, and so in fear of things I do not understand I have not yet advanced to the conclusions of modern science that God is a left over concept that modern men have grown out of. Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Isaac Asimov are the superior minds who will guide a reformed species (genetically altered, of course) into the glorious future.
Click to expand...
Atheist Rationalist:
The Empirical Method is the key to all Truth. Anything which does not follow this is inherently flawed, and should be disdained.

Devout Religious Believer:
The Scripture/Church is the key to all Truth. Anything which does not follow this is inherently flawed, and should be disdained.

The argument is the same in both cases, and neither person is open to discussion.

Should you meet someone who is actually willing to listen, I would suggest discussing with them the virtues of religious belief as a means of persuading humans to treat one another better. Despite all our advances in technology, we have not learnt to be less selfish or cruel to each other.
 
Mystophilus said:
Atheist Rationalist:
The Empirical Method is the key to all Truth. Anything which does not follow this is inherently flawed, and should be disdained.

Devout Religious Believer:
The Scripture/Church is the key to all Truth. Anything which does not follow this is inherently flawed, and should be disdained.

The argument is the same in both cases, and neither person is open to discussion.

Should you meet someone who is actually willing to listen, I would suggest discussing with them the virtues of religious belief as a means of persuading humans to treat one another better. Despite all our advances in technology, we have not learnt to be less selfish or cruel to each other.
Click to expand...
:clapping:

Peace,
+Nathan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top