Difference between revisions of "2006-11-05 Time bobbles the God and science debate"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (pharyngula -> PZ) |
(converted to new format) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | < | + | <hide> |
| − | + | <let name=data index=Date>2006-11-05</let> | |
| − | + | <let name=data index=Author>PZ Myers</let> | |
| − | + | <let name=data index=Source>Pharyngula</let> | |
| − | + | <let name=data index=Topics>\religion vs. science\Richard Dawkins\Francis Collins\Time Magazine</let> | |
| − | {{ | + | <let name=data index=URL>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/time_bobbles_the_god_and_scien.php</let> |
| − | </noinclude> | + | <let name=data index=Title>''Time'' bobbles the God and science debate</let> |
| + | <let name=data index=TextShort>“Gah, what ''crap''. [[Revelation]] is irrational and unreasonable. You can't do [[science]], collect data, and then decide, "Well, [[God]] has revealed to me that the correct answer is 2 grams heavier". .. That's precisely what [[Francis Collins|Collins]] wants to do, and he admits it: he wants to add in [[anti-scientific]] beliefs and pretend he is still talking about science.”</let> | ||
| + | <let name=data index=Text> | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>Collins just makes these grand assertions about the nature of an invisible, undetectable being as if they actually represent evidence – they don't. They are science-stoppers. Saying that an omniscient, omnipotent being who is aware of and cares about the fate of Francis Collins is a radically improbable suggestion, and just calling it "God" and insisting that he doesn't need explanation is a non-answer.</p> | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | : '''TIME''': But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond? | ||
| + | : '''COLLINS''': [[religion vs. science|Faith is not the opposite of reason]]. [[Faith]] rests squarely upon [[reason]], but with the added component of [[revelation]]. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>Gah, what ''crap''. [[Revelation]] is irrational and unreasonable. You can't do [[science]], collect data, and then decide, "Well, [[God]] has revealed to me that the correct answer is 2 grams heavier". ... That's precisely what [[Francis Collins|Collins]] wants to do, and he admits it: he wants to add in [[anti-scientific]] beliefs and pretend he is still talking about science.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote></let> | ||
| + | </hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if> | ||