The Case Against Faith (Richard Dawkins)
Posted by doctore0 on October 7, 2012
Richard Dawkins believes science’s ability to admit ignorance is one of its greatest strengths. On the flip side, he proposes that faith remains arrogant and all too certain of its validity without any rational set of proofs. While science can unite people around a common understanding, religion guarantees conflict and division that can never be rationally resolved.
synapticcohesion said
“Vestigial organs” and “junk DNA” do not sound like terms that admit ignorance. They sound like terms made up by those that are so arrogant that they can never admit to being wrong or not knowing something.
Believers on the other hand, are humbled by the fact that there is a lot out there that is unknown and that is why they often say, “God only knows.”
doctore0 said
Uhh science corrects itself.. religion does not, religion claims it has all the answers and extra life in luxury after death. Religion has zero evidence, null, 0; People bet on religion because of indoctrination and that fake ticket to the extra life.
synapticcohesion said
Science is not a sentient entity that “self corrects.” That is left to the devices of those who assume authority over what we call “science.” Ordinary people with flaws: biases, pride, arrogance, narrow mindedness, etc.
doctore0 said
You are thinking incorrectly that science works like religion.
Gideon Jagged said
Reblogged this on Alchemy of the Word.
The Case Against Faith (Richard Dawkins) | Alchemy of the Word said
[...] reblogged from DoctorE [...]