1. Joined
    26 Nov '07
    Moves
    1085
    19 Jan '09 15:50
    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?
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Jan '09 17:08
    Originally posted by Swlabr
    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?
    Biblical Archaeology come to mind.
  3. Joined
    01 Feb '06
    Moves
    994
    19 Jan '09 17:15
    Originally posted by Swlabr
    often end up digging holes for themselves. For instance, Dawkins and the God Delusion.

    out 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.
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    19 Jan '09 17:161 edit
    Science and religion doesn't mix.

    A religious would explain natural phenomena by "god wanted it this way".
    A scientific would fail to prove the existance of god.
  5. Joined
    26 Nov '07
    Moves
    1085
    19 Jan '09 17:32
    Originally posted by PawnChop
    out 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.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7114/full/443914a.html
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86285
    19 Jan '09 23:00
    Originally posted by Swlabr
    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?
    Perhaps 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.
  7. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    19 Jan '09 23:231 edit
    Originally posted by Swlabr
    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?
    ..."I was wondering if anyone could perhaps recommend some reading for me?"


    Yes. You can read my posts throughout this forum. ๐Ÿ˜ฒ ๐Ÿ˜€
  8. Standard memberChronicLeaky
    Don't Fear Me
    Reaping
    Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    655
    20 Jan '09 05:43
    Originally posted by Swlabr
    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?
    Fritjof 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.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Jan '09 09:01
    Originally posted by Swlabr
    Dawkins attempts to disprove all religions whilst any Christian author will be naturally biased.
    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 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.
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    20 Jan '09 09:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    Biblical Archaeology come to mind.
    don't agree. biblical archeology still relies on scientific methods(or it should)

    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."
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    20 Jan '09 09:13
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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 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(๐Ÿ˜€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.

    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.
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86285
    20 Jan '09 09:263 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    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(๐Ÿ˜€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.
    Good point Zed.


    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.
  13. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    20 Jan '09 12:00
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    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(๐Ÿ˜€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.
    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.
  14. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    20 Jan '09 12:521 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    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.
    Denying evolution is the same as denying that the earth is round.
    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...
  15. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    20 Jan '09 13:13
    Originally posted by rwingett
    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.
    as all theories, evolution might be wrong. or partially wrong. or incomplete. do you deny that?

    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?
Back to Top