The Dawkins Challenge

Catholic Things ^ | June 13, 2012 | William E. Carroll

[C19fan]

The noted atheist Richard Dawkins has been very active recently in his campaign to discredit religious belief, in particular Christianity, and Roman Catholicism has been a special target. He had a debate of sorts with Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, and appeared on an Australian television program, “Q and A,” with Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney. His animus against Catholicism was also evident in a joint appearance with Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and fellow non-believer (as Krauss likes to be called), at the Australian National University.

Krauss is the author of the much heralded, A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, in which he argues that it is highly plausible that we will soon be able to understand how the entire universe, including the fundamental laws of physics, can start from “absolutely nothing” without any need to appeal to a creator or supernatural agency.

[Boogieman]

I just have to assume you won’t pick a proposition and defend it because you can’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing semantics. Good day.

[RichInOC]

So Dawkins says, in effect, that we should reject the claims of Christianity because they don’t comport with common sense, but that we should accept the claims of science, even though they may not comport with common sense?

“How convenient.”

[<1/1,000,000th%]

With origins in the 17th century.

[Texas Songwriter]

"Does the scientist assume that reason will guide him to a correct understanding? No. He knows it.

Take a careful look at what you say. Take a look at your series of tautologies.

Tell you what. I will let the reader of your post and my posts stand in stark contrast to each other.

It is hard to resist not commenting on your statement that "science is based on Bayesian probability". That is a remarkable statement. I will let it go at that. It is not important I rejoin such a statement. I will let the reader make an assessment. It is unsetteling to know that science, according to you, does not rely on logic.

Good luck.

[spunkets]

K, assume away.
Have a good day.

[spunkets]

"It is unsetteling to know that science, according to you, does not rely on logic."

You missed something.

Re: "Science is based on Bayesian probability."

That is a remarkable statement. ... It is not important I rejoin such a statement.

It should learn it though.

[spunkets]

You...