http://www.isaiadis.com/2009/05/23/does-science-require-atheism/ Discussions on science, skepticism, pseudoscience; trips on the borders of religion and science; brief adventures in hi-fi; this is a Journey through a Burning Mind... Sat, 19 May 2012 17:53:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 http://www.isaiadis.com/2009/05/23/does-science-require-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-25256 Ernesto Tinajero Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:10:01 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/?p=1200#comment-25256 Thank you for reading my post. As to your two points, I have to answer. First, the quote by Weinberg is pithy and witty, a pithy and witty quote render false by evidence and science (see Stanford Prison Experiment. Second, the unfortunate use of justification is a human problem and not one limited to religion. Sam Harris's example of religion supporting slavery in the 19th century shows this tendency. The supporters of slavery did use religion, but the also used the science of the day (In fact, they used this science more that they did religion-see Gould'd Mismeasure of Man, and economic reasons. The fighters of slavery came out, for the most part, of various spiritual movements like the 2nd great awakening or the Methodists movements in England. Of Course, Mr. Harris ignores this evidence as it is contrary to what his prejudices. We humans (I include myself) are human, all too human. Second, the unfortunate use of justification is a human problem and not one limited to religion. Sam Harris’s example of religion supporting slavery in the 19th century shows this tendency. The supporters of slavery did use religion, but the also used the science of the day (In fact, they used this science more that they did religion-see Gould’d Mismeasure of Man, and economic reasons. The fighters of slavery came out, for the most part, of various spiritual movements like the 2nd great awakening or the Methodists movements in England. Of Course, Mr. Harris ignores this evidence as it is contrary to what his prejudices. We humans (I include myself) are human, all too human.]]> http://www.isaiadis.com/2009/05/23/does-science-require-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-23929 Stavros Mon, 25 May 2009 11:52:06 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/?p=1200#comment-23929 Ernesto I did read your brief essay attacking Dawkins and what you call fundamentalist Atheists. I have two simple comments that completely destroy any half-arguments you have there: First a quote by Weinberg: With or without religion, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things; but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. Second, as long as the Bible is ambiguous enough and open to so many different interpretations, religious people will be able to justify any evil action they want to.
First a quote by Weinberg: With or without religion, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things; but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

Second, as long as the Bible is ambiguous enough and open to so many different interpretations, religious people will be able to justify any evil action they want to.]]> http://www.isaiadis.com/2009/05/23/does-science-require-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-23880 sciencebitches Mon, 25 May 2009 00:51:43 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/?p=1200#comment-23880 I think makarios is learning his science from Horvid or something :-) makarios stop listening to creationists for your science education! Go ask a scientist or read a scientific book!
makarios stop listening to creationists for your science education! Go ask a scientist or read a scientific book!]]> http://www.isaiadis.com/2009/05/23/does-science-require-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-23835 Ernesto Tinajero Sun, 24 May 2009 05:24:16 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/?p=1200#comment-23835 I must disagree with your proposition. It assumes to much. It is only recently that Christian fundamentalists took the bible as literal. For the most of its history the church used a fourfold hermenutic with the the literal interpretation being the lowest of the four. What makes Dawkins dangerous is his <a href="http://www.life-and-faith.org" rel="nofollow">uncritical call to return to modernity.</a> It is the source of his fundamentalism and why he gets virulent with anyone (including other Atheists) who does not tow the party line. Makes you wonder if he ever read Wittgenstein. uncritical call to return to modernity. It is the source of his fundamentalism and why he gets virulent with anyone (including other Atheists) who does not tow the party line. Makes you wonder if he ever read Wittgenstein.]]> http://www.isaiadis.com/2009/05/23/does-science-require-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-23797 makarios Sat, 23 May 2009 16:36:57 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/?p=1200#comment-23797 I actually think that it will be science itself that proves the existence of Creator God. So far, all the evidence re: origins points in that direction.