RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
It's not a sensitive subject, Cholsy. You don't have to apologise, here. You're just not allowed to preach or proselytise.
You can quote it. The words of the bible aren't banned here, Cholsy, we've all read it. You just can't quote it as evidence in an argument in the sense that you can't say, 'No, look, it's true, it says so here in chapter and verse.' because that does not make it true, does it?
We - most of us at any rate - come from where you are now. I've no wish for that statement to sound patronising, merely to point out that we're not devils with horns, but normal people who stopped believing in the various gods that we grew up with.
I do find it difficult to understand not wanting to gain greater knowledge, I must admit?
No-one here would argue about most of the above. It's what most, if not all, of us think, here, too.
The argument we would give you is regarding how we ascertain exactly what is truth, and what is not.
Is there a way to achieve a better approximation of the truth than we have at present?
Than we have had in the past?
I feel there is. We owe it to ourselves to at least explore this.
How old do you think the universe is? How old do you think the earth is? These aren't trick questions, Cholsy, just a way of finding out where we stand in order to continue to talk. For example: I believe the bible was written - for the sake of argument - between 2000 & 3000 years ago. I believe the earth is 4.6/7 billion years old. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
I believe all of the above because science provides me with robust models that show me falsifiable evidence that this is so.
Still, that said, this belief is contingent, conditional, tentative.
I used to believe, like the great Fred Hoyle, that the universe was a 'steady state' universe. I have changed my mind. It is not. I have seen the evidence - the universe is expanding.
This belief itself is contingent, conditional, tentative.
Through this method I have moved towards a close approximation of the truth.
Yeah, me too. We have a great programme here in the UK (I don't know where you're speaking from?) called Spring Watch. It's fab. Half the nation watches it!
Obviously we differ here. This brings me back to my question earlier: Do you believe in evolution? How did your god go about creating these wondrous creatures, and when?
I'm sure you are a good person, Cholsy, and I for one am grateful that you want to help - and that you've ended up here.
Look, sometimes the debate can get a little heated, but it's hardly fisticuffs is it? You can always choose who, or who not, to respond to. This site is a great scientific resource. For example: if you wish to debate a materialist on absolute morality or the evolution/irreducible complexity of the eye, or, dare I say it, free will, then this is the place to come to sharpen your wits.
You don't even have to take part in debates, you can simply search for past threads.
There is nothing to be afraid of here, Cholsy. Nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
We really don't care that much if you rub us up the wrong way - we're all thick skinned and we're all grown-ups - we are all here to learn.
None of us are, or should be, afraid to be wrong.
We should celebrate those moments when we are shown to be wrong - for that is the moment we arrive at a closer approximation of the truth.
You're welcome. Thank you Cholsy.
Anvil.
Permalink Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:44:13 UTC | #944995