This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

scottburdick's Profile

scottburdick's Avatar Joined over 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by scottburdick

More Discussions by scottburdick

Latest Comments by scottburdick

Go to: A Religious Military? Spiritual Fitness Test or Rationality Fitness Test?

scottburdick's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by scottburdick

Excellent speech, Sean! I think a rationality fitness test would be great -- especially if administered to those seeking public office.

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:57:10 UTC | #947725

Go to: "We Believe" Todd Stiefel speaking at the Reason Rally

scottburdick's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by scottburdick

Several Christians I spoke to told me that god caused the rain out of displeasure at all the blasphemy. I replied that god seemed to hate Atheists more than he loved Christians, since he never brought rain to Texas the previous summer to end their drought and wildfires, despite the governor's repeated calls for the majority Christians of his state to pray for rain.

My solution, then? Rick Perry should invite the Reason Rally to Texas next year. Todd Stiefel and Richard Dawkins could be modern day miracle workers! Wouldn't it be nice to have all those Western states competing to get Atheists to bless them with their presence?

Sun, 13 May 2012 11:24:06 UTC | #941273

Go to: Jon Stewart Doesn’t Understand How Science Works Even a Little Bit

scottburdick's Avatar Jump to comment 45 by scottburdick

Akaei. One of the best breakdowns of the word “faith” as I’ve heard.

To boil it down, I’d say the difference is that “faith” in scientific ideas are based upon fact and a system that continually questions these facts to challenge and update them, versus a religious faith based on little or no evidence that holds itself above questioning and that holds itself actually immune to evidentiary rebuttal.

Our “faith” is in the whole system and structure of the scientific method and peer-reviewed community even if one can never have direct contact or even understanding of every subject and the evidence the (tentative) conclusions are based upon. We have faith that errors will be actively sought and corrected over time as new information becomes available.

As you point out, this is not even remotely analogous to religious “faith” so should not even be used as a term in regard to scientific theories and hypothesis, which are by nature never absolute.

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:36:22 UTC | #936243

Go to: Jon Stewart Doesn’t Understand How Science Works Even a Little Bit

scottburdick's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by scottburdick

Comment Removed by Author

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:33:02 UTC | #936242

Go to: Jon Stewart Doesn’t Understand How Science Works Even a Little Bit

scottburdick's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by scottburdick

Jon Stewart's assertion that religion and science both rely upon "faith" merely shows how pervasive this viewpoint is even among otherwise well-educated people. It is a wake-up call to the extent to which our education system is falling short on teaching the scientific method and the importance of using reason and evidence in evaluating truth, be it the claims of Televangelist asking for money, a Homeopathy practitioner proposing a cure, or a scientist hypothesizing the existence of electrons, dark matter, or gravity.

The difference between Faith and Science is not a fuzzy line like Stewart and this author believe and this is a crucial message for all of us to focus on getting across.

If you can convince someone to use reason and evidence in evaluating truth, you don’t need to tell them religion and other irrational beliefs are nonsense; they will come to those conclusions on their own.

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:34:41 UTC | #935723

More Comments by scottburdick