19 Jan 09
Whenever I encounter a book that mixes science with religion - either looking at science from a religious point of view or religion from a scientific point of view - I am invariably sceptical. Generally such books are attempting to be reasonable and unbiased but often end up as the opposite; biased pieces of literature attempting to support an often groundless claim. For instance, if you ever take the time to read a book claiming a scientific investigation into the existence of the Christian/Jewish flood it will invariably be written by a Christian and not be overly scientific nor investigative. On the other hand, those who attempt to disprove God, or the flood, or whatever, often end up digging holes for themselves. For instance, Dawkins and the God Delusion.
My problem is that, in short, is that no one looks at it from an unbiased point of view; Dawkins attempts to disprove all religions whilst any Christian author will be naturally biased.
Of course, I am over generalising. There are, I am sure, many unbiased scientific investigations into religion and the different aspect of it, both historical (e.g. the flood of Genesis fame) and philosophical. However, I am yet to find any, and thus I was wondering if anyone could perhaps recommend some reading for me?
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwlabrBiblical Archaeology come to mind.
Whenever I encounter a book that mixes science with religion - either looking at science from a religious point of view or religion from a scientific point of view - I am invariably sceptical. Generally such books are attempting to be reasonable and unbiased but often end up as the opposite; biased pieces of literature attempting to support an often groundles ...[text shortened]... yet to find any, and thus I was wondering if anyone could perhaps recommend some reading for me?
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by Swlabrout of interest, as someone who has read The God Delusion could you point me to the areas where Dawkin's 'digs a hole for himself' so i can take a look for myself please.
often end up digging holes for themselves. For instance, Dawkins and the God Delusion.
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwlabrPerhaps it is because anyone who cares enough about anything to right a book about it, will always have a personal angle. It's not just evidential in the case you describe but over the decades also, within the two so called extreme (not my view btw) positions.
Whenever I encounter a book that mixes science with religion - either looking at science from a religious point of view or religion from a scientific point of view - I am invariably sceptical. Generally such books are attempting to be reasonable and unbiased but often end up as the opposite; biased pieces of literature attempting to support an often groundles ...[text shortened]... yet to find any, and thus I was wondering if anyone could perhaps recommend some reading for me?
19 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Swlabr..."I was wondering if anyone could perhaps recommend some reading for me?"
Whenever I encounter a book that mixes science with religion - either looking at science from a religious point of view or religion from a scientific point of view - I am invariably sceptical. Generally such books are attempting to be reasonable and unbiased but often end up as the opposite; biased pieces of literature attempting to support an often groundles ...[text shortened]... yet to find any, and thus I was wondering if anyone could perhaps recommend some reading for me?
Yes. You can read my posts throughout this forum. 😲 😀
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwlabrFritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics" can be read simply as a popular account of some ideas in modern physics in the same book as a popular account of various ideas in several belief systems, with metaphorical parallels drawn between the two.
Whenever I encounter a book that mixes science with religion - either looking at science from a religious point of view or religion from a scientific point of view - I am invariably sceptical. Generally such books are attempting to be reasonable and unbiased but often end up as the opposite; biased pieces of literature attempting to support an often groundles ...[text shortened]... yet to find any, and thus I was wondering if anyone could perhaps recommend some reading for me?
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwlabrI don't think Dawkins attempts to proove anything. I suspect this is a case of the readers bias in expecting Dawkins to provide proof.
Dawkins attempts to disprove all religions whilst any Christian author will be naturally biased.
He instead points out good reason to be skeptical of any religious claims especially the most popularly known ones.
I think all writters are biased and that such bias is not necessarily a bad thing. Bad bias is when it leads to arguements that cannot be logically supported with the evidence presented.
The writting I most strongly object to is not biased writting but deliberately deceptive writting.
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by whodeydon't agree. biblical archeology still relies on scientific methods(or it should)
Biblical Archaeology come to mind.
you look for relics that are connected to biblical events and places, you don't use the bible to support biblical archeology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Archeology
"In fact the members of the school were not biblical literalists, and their main concern was to discriminate between those parts of the biblical story which were true and those which were embellishments."
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhat you say it is true when one talks about the god delusion (well as much as i read it). in that book he tries to be reasonably reasonable(😀wink) and to maintain an objective stance. yes, he advises skepticism towards religion, but from a scientific point of view we should all be skeptics towards anything that hasn't been proven enough or not at all.
I don't think Dawkins attempts to proove anything. I suspect this is a case of the readers bias in expecting Dawkins to provide proof.
He instead points out good reason to be skeptical of any religious claims especially the most popularly known ones.
I think all writters are biased and that such bias is not necessarily a bad thing. Bad bias is when ...[text shortened]... writting I most strongly object to is not biased writting but deliberately deceptive writting.
what really annoys me about dawkins is the conviction that there is no god, the conviction that anyone who doesn't think that evolution is the ultimate truth is insane or ignorant, the conviction with which he claims religion is crippling the mind, and the conviction that he is a genius and he is right. all his documentaries only show the bad side of religion. and that is biased.
20 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziGood point Zed.
what you say it is true when one talks about the god delusion (well as much as i read it). in that book he tries to be reasonably reasonable(😀wink) and to maintain an objective stance. yes, he advises skepticism towards religion, but from a scientific point of view we should all be skeptics towards anything that hasn't been proven enough or not at all.
and he is right. all his documentaries only show the bad side of religion. and that is biased.
Person thinks:
I can't see a god, and there are a lot of silly religious people in the world doing silly things like singing, helping folk and sometimes murder
Therefore: I don't believe in god because he is not there and I don't want to be assosiated with silliness
Therefore anyone who does believe in god is part of the silly person group an should be treated accordingly
Hense the amount of scorn there is in this forum (at times)
It's poor logic. There are silly people who sing, help folk and murder, from all walks of life and backgrounds - even science.
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnyone who continues to deny evolution IS either insane or ignorant. Or both. And anyone who denies that such people are either insane or ignorant is a misguided, collaborationist fool. Or worse. There is nothing wrong with simply being religious. But the continued denial of evolution marks one as being fit for nothing but public scorn and ridicule.
what you say it is true when one talks about the god delusion (well as much as i read it). in that book he tries to be reasonably reasonable(😀wink) and to maintain an objective stance. yes, he advises skepticism towards religion, but from a scientific point of view we should all be skeptics towards anything that hasn't been proven enough or not at all.
...[text shortened]... and he is right. all his documentaries only show the bad side of religion. and that is biased.
20 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettDenying evolution is the same as denying that the earth is round.
Anyone who continues to deny evolution IS either insane or ignorant. Or both. And anyone who denies that such people are either insane or ignorant is a misguided, collaborationist fool. Or worse. There is nothing wrong with simply being religious. But the continued denial of evolution marks one as being fit for nothing but public scorn and ridicule.
We can both laugh at the latter, but indeed it's the same kind of ignorance.
Why deny the part of creation that is evolution? If I were a creationist, evolution would be the miracle number one! It's simply beautiful...
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by rwingettas all theories, evolution might be wrong. or partially wrong. or incomplete. do you deny that?
Anyone who continues to deny evolution IS either insane or ignorant. Or both. And anyone who denies that such people are either insane or ignorant is a misguided, collaborationist fool. Or worse. There is nothing wrong with simply being religious. But the continued denial of evolution marks one as being fit for nothing but public scorn and ridicule.
do you deny that people who hold newton mechanic to be absolute are ignorant? was einstein right to question newton and change and add to his theories?