People think they own public figures. Always amazed how many people told Richard Dawkins to stick to talking about biology on his own Twitter account. You don't see plumbers with 250 followers being told they can't discuss religion & politics online. Just plumbing. Entitled.https://twitter.com/BrettMoan/status/971167774910373888 …
But we don't have to do that. That's what everyone has done for centuries. We can look at it an epistemological sense now with the weight of science to draw on.
-
-
I think it’s a category mistake. For instance, Dawkins seems incapable of grasping the idea of Being qua Being, therefore God must be a form of being akin to radishes or unicorns and just as subject to scientific inquiry.
-
Biologists don't really deal with being qua being, no. But there are plenty of books which do talk just like this. It's been going on for centuries. It's OK if a biologist wants to look at scientific claims in religion too.
-
Absolutely, as long as they belong to the same category. And the measureable consequences of religious beliefs and practices, social arrangements etc... are all fair game. But Dawkins,like all ideologues, makes strident conclusions beyond the evidence.
-
Biology is a different category to theology. That's OK tho. What conclusions? That religion is silly? That the God character is immoral? That God might exist but that there's no evidence of one?
-
Religion, like government can be silly, but isn’t essentially so. God, properly understood, is not immoral. God’s existence / non existence can’t be proved, although Hitchens respected the fine tuning argument. Only reasonable positions can be reached. Ideologues claim certitude.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.