| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
13 Sep 2003 04:08:49 AM |
| Object: |
Microscopes have no morals |
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Colin Tudge
Saturday September 13, 2003
The Guardian
James Watson, co-unraveller of DNA, told television viewers recently
how "embarrassed" he is to meet scientists who believe in God, or
indeed who take religion seriously. He was talking to his chum and
fellow atheist Richard Dawkins. Both are outstanding and prominent
spokesmen for their trade - Dawkins a professor of science
communication at Oxford. The message from on high seems clear.
Religion is dead. Long live science.
But religion has been entwined in science from its beginnings, and has
never gone away. Many scientists today are devout. Some, including
some who are highly competent, are as committedly Christian or Muslim
or Jewish as Watson and Dawkins are atheist. One of the highlights of
this week's meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science was a discussion on why, although the existing religions do
not capture all of what's out there in the universe, some at least of
their endeavours must be taken seriously.
Colin Tudge
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=+%22Colin+Tudge%22&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=+%22Colin+Tudge%22&sa=N&tab=nw
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=+%22Colin+Tudge%22&sa=N&tab=wg
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=+%22Colin+Tudge%22&sa=N&tab=gd&cat=gwd%2FTop
.
|
|
| User: "August Pamplona" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
13 Sep 2003 02:12:50 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com...
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Colin Tudge
Saturday September 13, 2003
The Guardian
James Watson, co-unraveller of DNA, told television viewers recently
how "embarrassed" he is to meet scientists who believe in God, or
indeed who take religion seriously. He was talking to his chum and
fellow atheist Richard Dawkins. Both are outstanding and prominent
spokesmen for their trade - Dawkins a professor of science
communication at Oxford. The message from on high seems clear.
Religion is dead. Long live science.
But religion has been entwined in science from its beginnings, and has
never gone away. Many scientists today are devout. Some, including
some who are highly competent, are as committedly Christian or Muslim
or Jewish as Watson and Dawkins are atheist. One of the highlights of
this week's meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science was a discussion on why, although the existing religions do
not capture all of what's out there in the universe, some at least of
their endeavours must be taken seriously.
Colin Tudge
Same old ***** about how religion is the only source of morality.
August Pamplona
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
13 Sep 2003 03:07:27 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com...
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Colin Tudge
Saturday September 13, 2003
The Guardian
James Watson, co-unraveller of DNA, told television viewers recently
how "embarrassed" he is to meet scientists who believe in God, or
indeed who take religion seriously. He was talking to his chum and
fellow atheist Richard Dawkins. Both are outstanding and prominent
spokesmen for their trade - Dawkins a professor of science
communication at Oxford. The message from on high seems clear.
Religion is dead. Long live science.
Why is it that religionists take things in such an authoritarian way? I see
no "message from on high" here. I just see the opinions of Watson and
Dawkins. Why should anyone take their opinions as a "message from on high"?
Of course, it's a rhetorical question. They wouldn't be religionists if they
didn't need leaders and authorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "spakka" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
13 Sep 2003 06:05:09 PM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
Why is it that religionists take things in such an authoritarian way? I see
no "message from on high" here. I just see the opinions of Watson and
Dawkins. Why should anyone take their opinions as a "message from on high"?
Of course, it's a rhetorical question. They wouldn't be religionists if they
didn't need leaders and authorities.
At least he spared us the call for 'humility'.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
14 Sep 2003 02:29:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:17:11 GMT the ET form known as
Zachriel<angel@zachriel.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Though Watson and Dawkins are eminent scientists, and are certainly entitled
to their opinions, they are not experts in the field of theology.
That's an oxy moron. You do not need to be an expert in the field of
theology. You just make it up as you go.
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
14 Sep 2003 12:34:04 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.19ceafd297b9c717989c27@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
*
And a hundred years earlier, Ingersoll said:
"All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any
reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human
invention -- of barbarian invention -- is to read it. Read it as you
would any other book; think of it as you would of any other, get the
bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom
of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form of
superstition -- then read the Holy bible, and you will be amazed that
you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom,
goodness and purity to be the author of such ignorance and such
atrocity."
--Robert Ingersoll (from his essay 'The Gods')
earle
*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
14 Sep 2003 06:03:45 AM |
|
|
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:17:11 GMT the ET form known as
Zachriel<angel@zachriel.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Though Watson and Dawkins are eminent scientists, and are certainly
entitled to their opinions, they are not experts in the field of
theology.
That's an oxy moron. You do not need to be an expert in the field of
theology. You just make it up as you go.
As a former theology student, I have to disagree with this, with an
aphorism of my Theology I lecturer - everybody has a theology (he was
speaking of Christians); the key is whether it is good or bad theology.
Some people make it up as they go - but generally they are less creative
about it than they might seem or think. Tradition constrains folk
whether they think they are free to interpret as the spirit moves or
not.
And actually Dawkins has shown himself to be well aware of evangelical
ideas and biblical criticism. In that respect he resemble Huxley, who
often argued classical and patristic theology right back at theologians,
and occasionally mopped the floor with them (fewer times than he might
have thought, I suspect).
Watson's ideas on philosophy, theology and social theory strike me as
naive and simplistic, though.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
16 Sep 2003 01:03:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:03:45 +0000, John Wilkins wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:17:11 GMT the ET form known as
Zachriel<angel@zachriel.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Though Watson and Dawkins are eminent scientists, and are certainly
entitled to their opinions, they are not experts in the field of
theology.
That's an oxy moron. You do not need to be an expert in the field of
theology. You just make it up as you go.
As a former theology student, I have to disagree with this, with an
aphorism of my Theology I lecturer - everybody has a theology (he was
speaking of Christians); the key is whether it is good or bad theology.
Some people make it up as they go - but generally they are less creative
about it than they might seem or think. Tradition constrains folk whether
they think they are free to interpret as the spirit moves or not.
And actually Dawkins has shown himself to be well aware of evangelical
ideas and biblical criticism. In that respect he resemble Huxley, who
often argued classical and patristic theology right back at theologians,
and occasionally mopped the floor with them (fewer times than he might
have thought, I suspect).
Watson's ideas on philosophy, theology and social theory strike me as
naive and simplistic, though.
Do you have a handy reference to Dawkins on theology? I'd like to get a
taste of it sometime...
--
Today, whether his critics like it or not, Charles Darwin's thought
organizes the biological science of the Western world. His work has
made possible such once-unimaginable things as organ transplants
using organs derived from subhuman species. They work because Darwin
was right. That strange thing called "creation science" is nothing
more than ignorant rantings reflecting a frightened and dying
religious mentality.
John Shelby Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of Newark,
from _Why Christianity Must Change or Die_
--Daniel Harper
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
16 Sep 2003 01:21:48 AM |
|
|
Daniel Harper <daniel_harper@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:03:45 +0000, John Wilkins wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:17:11 GMT the ET form known as
Zachriel<angel@zachriel.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Though Watson and Dawkins are eminent scientists, and are certainly
entitled to their opinions, they are not experts in the field of
theology.
That's an oxy moron. You do not need to be an expert in the field of
theology. You just make it up as you go.
As a former theology student, I have to disagree with this, with an
aphorism of my Theology I lecturer - everybody has a theology (he was
speaking of Christians); the key is whether it is good or bad theology.
Some people make it up as they go - but generally they are less creative
about it than they might seem or think. Tradition constrains folk whether
they think they are free to interpret as the spirit moves or not.
And actually Dawkins has shown himself to be well aware of evangelical
ideas and biblical criticism. In that respect he resemble Huxley, who
often argued classical and patristic theology right back at theologians,
and occasionally mopped the floor with them (fewer times than he might
have thought, I suspect).
Watson's ideas on philosophy, theology and social theory strike me as
naive and simplistic, though.
Do you have a handy reference to Dawkins on theology? I'd like to get a
taste of it sometime...
Try the afterword/notes to the 1989 edition of The Selfish gene, where
he discusses the mistranslation of "almah" in the Gospel of Matthew (or
was it Luke?).
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Siemon" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
16 Sep 2003 01:49:24 AM |
|
|
In article <1g1e09n.181kv3ao7lnqyN%>,
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Daniel Harper <daniel_harper@earthlink.net> wrote:
.....
Do you have a handy reference to Dawkins on theology? I'd like to get a
taste of it sometime...
Try the afterword/notes to the 1989 edition of The Selfish gene, where
he discusses the mistranslation of "almah" in the Gospel of Matthew (or
was it Luke?).
Sigh. Neither. It's the Septuagint _Isaiah_ (translated by Jews, taken
as "Scripture" by the early Church). Awareness of this particular
point is (a) easy, (b) widespread, and (c) indicates nothing at
all about the depth of theological/evangelical awareness of Dawkins,
which strikes me (on the occasional moments when I can force myself
through his tendentious writing) as quite shallow, thank you.
But then again, most "evangelicals" are ignorant shits, too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
15 Sep 2003 06:19:27 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>...
Microscopes have no morals
And God... we won't even think about those Honda robots (gasp)...
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Actually what Science really needs is the ability to entertain,
encourage, instruct, and uplift a room full of dimwits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
15 Sep 2003 07:18:35 PM |
|
|
In article <5591d176.0309151523.65430785@posting.google.com>,
(Dave) wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>...
Microscopes have no morals
And God... we won't even think about those Honda robots (gasp)...
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
*
Science needs religion like you need a third nostril.
earle
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sverker Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
17 Sep 2003 05:35:05 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-CF0DCD.17222215092003@netnews.attbi.com>...
In article <5591d176.0309151523.65430785@posting.google.com>,
galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>...
Microscopes have no morals
And God... we won't even think about those Honda robots (gasp)...
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
*
Science needs religion like you need a third nostril.
No. A third nostril _could_ be useful, when I have a cold
and the regular two are congested.
Science needs religion like you need mycorrhiza.
Best regards,
Sverker Johansson
-----------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
15 Sep 2003 07:10:52 AM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>...
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Obviously each microscope needs a priest assigned to it. The priest
can apply the holy immersion oil, bless the illuminator, and then go
stand in the corner.
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Wahhabism perhaps.
---
"They call us the "Wahhabis" and they call our creed a "Wahhabi" one
as if it were a special one... and this is an extremely erroneous
allegation that has arisen from the false propaganda launched by those
who had ill feelings as well as ill intentions towards the movement.
We are not proclaiming a new creed or a new dogma. Muhammad bin Abdul
Wahhab did not come with anything new. Our creed is the creed of those
good people who preceded us and which came in the Book of God (the
Qur'an) as well as that of his Messenger (the prophet Muhammad, peace
be upon him). --His Majesty King Abdul Aziz (Ibn Saud)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
15 Sep 2003 10:22:52 AM |
|
|
(Dave) writes:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>...
Obviously each microscope needs a priest assigned to it. The priest
can apply the holy immersion oil, bless the illuminator, and then go
stand in the corner.
I've often wondered: if science, with its ruleset for the
collection, evaluation, and pragmatic deployment of knowledge, cannot
provide us with moral and ethical guidance, then why do people believe
that religion, which lacks any such ruleset, will do any better?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
15 Sep 2003 10:44:14 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com>:
galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) writes:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>...
Obviously each microscope needs a priest assigned to it. The priest
can apply the holy immersion oil, bless the illuminator, and then go
stand in the corner.
I've often wondered: if science, with its ruleset for the
collection, evaluation, and pragmatic deployment of knowledge, cannot
provide us with moral and ethical guidance, then why do people believe
that religion, which lacks any such ruleset, will do any better?
The scientific rules prevent it from providing moral answers. It
does provide moral guidance in a particular way. If I throw a
rock it may be morally good or bad, my determination of that
depends, in part, on the scientific answer of where the rock will
likely go. But that is all science can deliver. Religion lacks
the ability to tell me where the rock will go, but it can,
perhaps, tell me if that place is moral or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sverker Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
17 Sep 2003 05:28:01 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<qv0dmvkuffglv7l76ac1j6ne37vfeheqjq@4ax.com>...
In talk.origins I read this message from "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com>:
galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) writes:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>...
Obviously each microscope needs a priest assigned to it. The priest
can apply the holy immersion oil, bless the illuminator, and then go
stand in the corner.
I've often wondered: if science, with its ruleset for the
collection, evaluation, and pragmatic deployment of knowledge, cannot
provide us with moral and ethical guidance, then why do people believe
that religion, which lacks any such ruleset, will do any better?
The scientific rules prevent it from providing moral answers. It
does provide moral guidance in a particular way. If I throw a
rock it may be morally good or bad, my determination of that
depends, in part, on the scientific answer of where the rock will
likely go. But that is all science can deliver.
Because science refrains from pontificating on issues
in which assertions cannot be justified.
Religion lacks
the ability to tell me where the rock will go, but it can,
perhaps, tell me if that place is moral or not.
Religion can _assert_ that something is moral, or otherwise.
But their assertions about morality have no more
justification than anybody else's. Why should we grant
religion any special authority in this realm, or any special
exemption from having to justify their assertions?
Best regards,
Sverker Johansson
-----------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Kinserlow" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
15 Sep 2003 11:52:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:22:52 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) writes:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>...
Obviously each microscope needs a priest assigned to it. The priest
can apply the holy immersion oil, bless the illuminator, and then go
stand in the corner.
I've often wondered: if science, with its ruleset for the
collection, evaluation, and pragmatic deployment of knowledge, cannot
provide us with moral and ethical guidance, then why do people believe
that religion, which lacks any such ruleset, will do any better?
Elf
Science is a discipline. Religion, like all confidence games, is an
art form.
++ Ray Kinserlow Jr. ++
kinserlow at earthlink dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
14 Sep 2003 12:59:56 AM |
|
|
In article <18510aff.0309130112.1ee410c7@posting.google.com>,
(maff) wrote:
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Colin Tudge
Saturday September 13, 2003
The Guardian
James Watson, co-unraveller of DNA, told television viewers recently
how "embarrassed" he is to meet scientists who believe in God, or
indeed who take religion seriously. He was talking to his chum and
fellow atheist Richard Dawkins. Both are outstanding and prominent
spokesmen for their trade - Dawkins a professor of science
communication at Oxford. The message from on high seems clear.
Religion is dead. Long live science.
But religion has been entwined in science from its beginnings, and has
never gone away. Many scientists today are devout. Some, including
some who are highly competent, are as committedly Christian or Muslim
or Jewish as Watson and Dawkins are atheist. One of the highlights of
this week's meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science was a discussion on why, although the existing religions do
not capture all of what's out there in the universe, some at least of
their endeavours must be taken seriously.
*
Overwhelmingly, scientists -- and especially the most highly regarded
scientists -- reject any idea of a personal God and the concept of
immortality:
The scientific journal "Nature" reported recently on the religious
beliefs of top scientists. The first survey was conducted in 1916.
The same study was repeated in 1933 and recently (more than 80 years
after the first study) in 1998:
From "NATURE"
Leading Scientists Still Reject God
Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998)
© Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15.0 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68.0 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17.0 20.8
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18.0 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53.0 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29.0 23.3
Figures are percentages.
Details:
"NATURE" SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate
of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey
involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half
replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7%
responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal
disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in
the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined
from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the
"human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2%
claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with
43.7% in Leuba's original measurement [Dr. James Leuba,
Psychology Professor at Bryn Mawr University conducted the
original study]. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in
a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%, while the lowest
was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.
From "NATURE" 394, 313 (23 Jul 1998) Correspondence
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
14 Sep 2003 02:25:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:08:49 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as
maff<maff91@yahoo.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse of
deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Colin Tudge
Saturday September 13, 2003
The Guardian
James Watson, co-unraveller of DNA, told television viewers recently
how "embarrassed" he is to meet scientists who believe in God, or
indeed who take religion seriously. He was talking to his chum and
fellow atheist Richard Dawkins. Both are outstanding and prominent
spokesmen for their trade - Dawkins a professor of science
communication at Oxford. The message from on high seems clear.
Religion is dead. Long live science.
But religion has been entwined in science from its beginnings, and has
never gone away. Many scientists today are devout. Some, including
some who are highly competent, are as committedly Christian or Muslim
or Jewish as Watson and Dawkins are atheist. One of the highlights of
this week's meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science was a discussion on why, although the existing religions do
not capture all of what's out there in the universe, some at least of
their endeavours must be taken seriously.
So many errors. To start with the implied assertion that Dawkins and
Watson are "devote" atheists. Yet another example of how many theists
understand those who do not share their belief. They are determined
that their mind numbing faith in the unknown must the MO also of all
who lack their belief. Non belief must be as irrational as their
belief. Theists do not understand the physical world around them so
how can they be expected to understand atheism.
The next mistake was the "no true Scotsman" argument to the effect
that religion is not really the fundy kind.
Then came the assertion that if the writers of Genesis were scholars
then their error was simply only a lack of hard data. But there is no
evidence that the writers of Genesis were scholars. If the writers of
Genesis were scholars there would not be a talking snake, or
contradictory accounts within Genesis and it would not be so similar
to there myths in the regions that were so obviously not written by
scholars.
Next that morality lies in religion. I tried not to laugh as my throat
and chest hurts when I do laugh with my nasty virus bug. Colin Tudge
then set up a strawman of morality as a mere economic exercise to
attack secular morality. You either have to have some blind devotion
to a god or be an economic calculator. Also a false dichotomy. There
are other ways of approaching morality and these do not have to
include any gods. There are also many examples of immorality coming
from a belief in god(s) but Colin would probably wheel out the "no
true Scotsman" again. Please give this old tired gentleman a rest.
Finally he finishes up near why he started - by inventing an
"anachronism" that is the conflict between religion and science. A
type of no true Scotsman I think. Any position that is critical of
Tudge's view of what religion is must be an "anachronism" since a
modern position must coincide with his. Can you imaging playing
football with this guy? Every time you approach his goal posts he
would move them away and call the present position an "anachronism".
Mixed in there somewhere from an argument that many decorated
scientists are devote yudder yudder yudder. As usual xian apologetics
comes down to an exercise in nearly every form of text book
defined logical fallacy.
I am going to send a copy of this post to Colin Tudge @
<colintudge@supanet.com>.
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bennett Standeven" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
17 Sep 2003 01:26:47 AM |
|
|
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.19ceaf038b7fd916989c26@news.optusnet.com.au>...
If the writers of
Genesis were scholars there would not be a talking snake, or
contradictory accounts within Genesis and it would not be so similar
to there myths in the regions that were so obviously not written by
scholars.
Yeah; obviously these myths were written by aliens who didn't
understand Earth biology.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
14 Sep 2003 01:48:46 PM |
|
|
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.19ceaf038b7fd916989c26@news.optusnet.com.au>...>
So many errors. To start with the implied assertion that Dawkins and
Watson are "devote" atheists. Yet another example of how many theists
understand those who do not share their belief. They are determined
that their mind numbing faith in the unknown must the MO also of all
who lack their belief. Non belief must be as irrational as their
belief. Theists do not understand the physical world around them so
how can they be expected to understand atheism.
do you think science magazines will buy paparazzi pictures of famous scientists?
mk5000
'he'd not
willingly walk into a corner to let you capture him...hence, unusual
circumstances call for unusual measures to deal with them..."--beth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
14 Sep 2003 03:11:04 PM |
|
|
(marika) writes:
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.19ceaf038b7fd916989c26@news.optusnet.com.au>...>
So many errors. To start with the implied assertion that Dawkins and
Watson are "devote" atheists. Yet another example of how many theists
understand those who do not share their belief. They are determined
that their mind numbing faith in the unknown must the MO also of all
who lack their belief. Non belief must be as irrational as their
belief. Theists do not understand the physical world around them so
how can they be expected to understand atheism.
do you think science magazines will buy paparazzi pictures of famous scientists?
Would that be something new?
http://sja.ucdavis.edu/images/einstein-lg.jpg
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pz" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
14 Sep 2003 02:02:37 PM |
|
|
In article <eb4ee788.0309141052.1ac1840d@posting.google.com>,
(marika) wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:<MPG.19ceaf038b7fd916989c26@news.optusnet.com.au>...>
So many errors. To start with the implied assertion that Dawkins and
Watson are "devote" atheists. Yet another example of how many theists
understand those who do not share their belief. They are determined
that their mind numbing faith in the unknown must the MO also of all
who lack their belief. Non belief must be as irrational as their
belief. Theists do not understand the physical world around them so
how can they be expected to understand atheism.
do you think science magazines will buy paparazzi pictures of famous
scientists?
Sure. About the same time they start employing paparazzi to chase
down famous theologians.
--
pz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
15 Sep 2003 09:55:28 AM |
|
|
maff wrote in talk.origins
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Really? And where is that underpinning in religion? Can you show us
where it works?
--
***** #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
15 Sep 2003 10:43:55 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from ***** C
<dickcr@localnet.boo.com>:
maff wrote in talk.origins
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best provide
Really? And where is that underpinning in religion? Can you show us
where it works?
Are you asking Maff to respond to something? Why would you do
that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
16 Sep 2003 10:42:23 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote in talk.origins
In talk.origins I read this message from ***** C
<dickcr@localnet.boo.com>:
maff wrote in talk.origins
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best
provide
Really? And where is that underpinning in religion? Can you show us
where it works?
Are you asking Maff to respond to something? Why would you do
that?
The questions were rhetorical.
--
***** #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
16 Sep 2003 05:27:53 PM |
|
|
***** C <dickcr@localnet.boo.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in talk.origins
In talk.origins I read this message from ***** C
<dickcr@localnet.boo.com>:
maff wrote in talk.origins
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best
provide
Really? And where is that underpinning in religion? Can you show us
where it works?
Are you asking Maff to respond to something? Why would you do
that?
The questions were rhetorical.
Yeah, but what kind of answer did you expect?
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
16 Sep 2003 06:15:38 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from ***** C
<dickcr@localnet.boo.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote in talk.origins
In talk.origins I read this message from ***** C
<dickcr@localnet.boo.com>:
maff wrote in talk.origins
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best
provide
Really? And where is that underpinning in religion? Can you show us
where it works?
Are you asking Maff to respond to something? Why would you do
that?
The questions were rhetorical.
Do you expect me to believe that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Microscopes have no morals |
17 Sep 2003 12:43:36 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote in talk.origins
In talk.origins I read this message from ***** C
<dickcr@localnet.boo.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote in talk.origins
In talk.origins I read this message from ***** C
<dickcr@localnet.boo.com>:
maff wrote in talk.origins
Microscopes have no morals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041298,00.html
Science needs the ethical underpinning that religion can best
provide
Really? And where is that underpinning in religion? Can you show us
where it works?
Are you asking Maff to respond to something? Why would you do
that?
The questions were rhetorical.
Do you expect me to believe that?
Its' my story and I'm sticking to it.
--
***** #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
