stufarq wrote:markfiend wrote:(belief vs opinion stuff)
This seems to be a matter of semantics.
Yep, I think you're probably right. I think there's a qulitative difference between religious faith and scientifically formed opinions though... But I've been on this merry-go-round before. Maybe we can agree to disagree here?
stufarq wrote:markfiend wrote:stufarq wrote:Dawkins, however, expressly wouldn't.
Have you anything to back that up? I fail to recall anything in his writings or what I've seen of his speech where he advocates forbidding religious opinions.
He doesn't believe that parents should bring their children up to believe in the religion that they (the parents) believe in.
Heh. Semantics again.
Dawkins's argument (as I understand it) is this: You don't talk about a Conservative child, or a Labour-supporting child (for instance) -- a child is too young to have formed a political opinion. Even the most hard-line Trotskyite would hesitate to say that their child was a Socialist. So why do religions get to claim "Christian children" or "Muslim children" etc.?
(Incidentally, going back to Catholicism, as far as the church in Rome is concerned, if you were baptised a Catholic, you're a Catholic until you die (or get excommunicated) so they get to count millions of "lapsed Catholics" in their claim of a billion plus members.)
stufarq wrote:But presumably he would bring his own children up to believe in science and in his own views of morality. In fact, he's made clear that he thinks all children should be brought up that way. On the face of it, it sounds reasonable: teach children a generalised morality and let them choose their belief when they're old enough to understand the choices. But what makes one person's belief more right than another's? Why should everyone be brought up being taught Dawkins's belief (science and generalised morality)? Parents have to teach their children something and what else would they teach them except what they themselves believe? But Dawkins won't allow for that because it's not what he believes. He's doing exactly what he criticises religious people of doing.
But on the other hand, without overt religious instruction, a child will
naturally grow into a kind of "naive atheism" in that they won't spontaneously develop any kind of god-belief. This is his point, that children must be indoctrinated if they are to develop religion.
stufarq wrote:markfiend wrote:And quite frankly if you think there are "holes" in the theory of evolution, you're welcome to try to fill them. I'm sure the Nobel committee will be in touch.
Even Dawkins admits that one. This is getting a bit technical but in
The Selfish Gene he agonises over the problem that the nautilus hasn't evolved a lensed eye when, according to all evolutionary expectations, it should have done.
I don't remember the part you're talking about but I think you must have misunderstood. There is no "should" in evolutionary theory.
The nautilus has (IIRC) a pin-hole camera eye, and is usually used as a response to the standard claim "How can an eye have evolved? What good is half an eye?" in that from the standpoint of our eyes (or those of octopus and squid etc., that also have lenses) the nautilus has "half an eye" but it is still better than no eye at all, so this is
expected under evolutionary theory.
stufarq wrote:Of course, the biggest hole is the fact that the fossil record itself is made of the few things that survive and we find, meaning that we have to assume that all the transitional forms existed because we'll never find them all. The fossil record gives us snapshots but there are lots of stages of evolution that we'll never catch "in the act". It doesn't mean that they never existed but it's still assumption. Just to reiterate, I do believe in evolution (and I use that word deliberately to annoy you
) but I'm also aware that it's not a perfect theory and certainly not, as many (Dawkins included) like to claim, scientific fact. Very little, if anything, is. Maybe one day it'll turn out to be complete rubbish and we'll discover that we really did come from monkeys after all.
But you're wrong. Evolution
is a fact, a fact that is explained by the theory of evolution. Evolution is a
mathematical necessity given that more organisms are born than live to reproduce.
There are far more holes in the theory of gravity (including, for a start, why it exists at all) than there are in the theory of evolution, yet no-one is in any doubt that a rock dropped off the top of a cliff will fall to the bottom.
(Oops, hit "quote" rather than "edit" just there)
)
)
(Ted?) - Bush = 'Shrub' - So I hear?!
