On 1 June 2014 00:06, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 31 May 2014, at 12:04, LizR wrote: > > On 31 May 2014 21:35, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To oppose religion and science transforms science into a religion. On the >> contrary, non confessional theology has to come back in the academy, that's >> all. The problem is not religion, it is the authoritative arguments. Some >> atheists club are worst than catholics is the way they dismiss evidences. >> They confirmed my felling that atheism is just, like Christianism, a >> variant of the Aristotelian theology. >> > > I think Dawkins is talking basically about authoritative arguments. He > clearly has in mind the insistence that "god did it", which stops people > being able to think of alternative explanations. I agree with him on this, > even if I am personally agnostic and not a militant atheist - god is not an > explanation, it merely pushes the question back a step. > > Q Why is there something rather than nothing? > A Because god made the world. > Q So why is there god rather than nothing? > A Don't blaspheme! (or whatever) > > Which is exactly similar to my atheist opponents: > > Q Why is there something rather than nothing? > A Because of the physical laws. > Q why are they physical laws? > A oh! that's philosophy (meaning: bullshit). > > Actually I agree - Dawkins' views can indeed be turned on himself, in a deconstructionist sort of way. But if you bear in mind that he's railing against institutionalised religion what he says is true, imho.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
