A short description of what we’re up to can be found here. Comments are welcome but may be moderated for content and tone.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Science Redux

David Berlinski does what I can’t (but certainly tried to) in a Peter Robinson interview appropriately entitled Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. He quotes from his book The Devil’s Delusion:
“In many respects, the word ‘naturalism’ comes closest to conveying what scientists regard as the spirit of science: the source of its superiority to religious thought. But what reason is there to conclude that everything is, to quote philosopher Alexander Byrne, ‘an aspect of the universe … revealed by the natural sciences’? There is no reason at all.”
He comments on the validity of certain scientists’ claim to authority:
“The comparable claim would be, ‘(a) I’m a scientist; (b) I’m an expert on contract law’. You’re an expert on contract law because you’ve studied particle physics? Give me a break. An expert on the existence of God because you’ve studied particle physics? I request the same break, the same suspension of belief, the same absence of commitment to whatever it is you’re saying.”
Then he goes after Darwin:
“Suspicions about Darwin’s theory arise for two reasons: the first, the theory makes little sense; the second, it is supported by little evidence.”
while pointing out the screamingly obvious:
“No one on my side of the table is saying, ‘It’s impossible that it could’ve happened that way’. What we’re saying is that the evidence is remarkably — remarkably — constrained, meagre, insufficient, inadequate, lacking in all forms of analytic sufficiency.”
There is a short version (cued to around the 43 minute mark for Robinson’s payoff question) and a long version, both very much worthy of your consideration.

No comments :

Post a Comment