The Dawkins Challenge

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

[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...