Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?

The first thing to note is that by 'empiricism' I mean (as wiki points out) the view that the only knowledge possible is arrived at via the 5 senses. Empiricism doesn't accept (like you appear to) that there can be other ways. Its says there is no other way. Empiricism is not a method, it is a philosophy. And a philosophy which cannot demonstrate itself to be true in any fashionThat I have difficulty in figuring out how explain how one finds the evidence does not mean I myself have no access to it. The evidence isn't empirical so cannot be demonstrated as can empirical evidence (usually). The Bible points out that if one is spiritually blind then this evidence they cannot see. There is no particular reason why the evidence need be empirical however - unless one holds to the unverifiable philosophical position of empiricism.

Empiricism, when used by philosophers, is a philosophy. Empiricism, as practiced by scientists, is a methodology. Most scientists couldn't even tell you what empiricism the philosophy says.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Philiosophical empiricism is alive and kicking at EvC - let me tell you.

Well, firstly, empricism doesn't specify "the 5 senses", and why would it - we have more physical senses than 5. (We have senses like our sense of balance and prioperception.)But, indeed, those physical senses are the only way knowledge may enter our minds. Outside of our senses our brains are closed rooms, nothing may enter. If there are other means by which knowledge may enter our minds, those would be senses (by definition) and so any knowledge gained from them would be empiric in nature. Even if God himself were to funnel knowledge into our brains, that funnel itself would represent a hitherto-unknown sense, and thus whatever knowledge gained that way would be empiric.The idea of non-empiric evidence is a non-starter. It's a contradiction in terms. No such knowledge can possibly exist. Evidence that cannot be known is not evidence for anything. Evidence that can be known is empiric by definition (your definitions, I mean.) Thus, any evidence that could possibly be put forth is, by definition, empiric.

Fair enough on the minutae.What if the God > Man funnel was directed at spirit not brain? Would that be empirical knowledge? It is known. I know it. That is evidence for something surely?

Discussion is drifting way off topic here.Let's get back to discussing the OP on Dawkins.

---

Science is one thing, evangelical atheism another. The speakers should make this distinction clear to their audiences. Instead, they appear to be using their scientific credentials to lend authority to the non-scientific statements they want to make. Once one is out of one's field, one is out of it. It's only fair to say as much.The truth is that science isn't atheism. In conducting their research, atheistic scientists work alongside colleagues from every major world religion.If the speakers aren't going to make this distinction clear it would be helpful if journalists did. But that's not likely to happen. Journalists tend to be out of their field when writing any story at all. They make a living reporting on their non-specialties.The damage this does is that it contributes to the confusion of science with atheism in the popular perception. This is already a confusion anti-science activists do their best to instill.I have met many people in the USA--religious moderates, not fundamentalists--who view the 'evo versus creo' debate as a fight for supremacy between two camps of fundamentalists. They see a rabid atheistic left and a rabid religious right shouting at each other. The idea that the pro-science side consists of activists who are 'really just promulgating another religion' is credible to them. They read headines out of places like Dover in this light. Their feeling becomes 'a pox on both your houses.' Their desire for moderation makes ID's 'teach the controversy' line look like a reasonable middle ground.Such people are not, needless to say, well informed about details in this debate. But that's true of most people regarding any story outside their specialty that appears in the news. They get a perception, but very little context.For professional scientists to play a role scripted for them by the Gishes of the world contributes to this misunderstanding. It does a profound disservice to science.Their audiences are already conditioned by the 'left' versus 'right' dynamics in democratic political debates. Audiences are used to debates taking place in the arena of opinion, with absolutists on the far left and far right trying to assert absolute answers. They are used to looking to the moderates in both camps to protect them from the zealots in both camps.But science is not a political opinion; it is not decided by popular vote. It is not a religion; it does not traffic in absolutes. It is completely different from these things in kind.Science is a pursuit, a method of study. It exists in another category. This needs to be recognized, made clear to all, and preserved.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity; typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Revision.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Revision.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

I see. What do you propose we do about that?

---

Education is the key.We need to do a much better job of teaching the populace to use critical thinking and logic, help them become more skeptical of claims and not simply believe what they are told just because it makes them feel good, teaching them all about the many ways our minds and emotions can and do cloud our logic and perception.We have a dangerous time ahead of us; the world is increasingly dependent upon science and technology at the same time the world's populace is increasingly likely to reject (in favor of irrational supernaturalism) the very thought processes (critical thinking, rationality and logic) that allow one to understand science and technology.

quote:

---

Children are indoctrinated with the information "Evolution is fact" from the day they were born. Steeped in it they are.

---

Not in america, they aren't.And there are quite a few more ignorant religious nutjobs here in the US, too.Coincidence? I don't think so...

quote:

---

Evidence is evidence whether evidence of the 5 sense sort or evidence of the faith- based sort.

---

So, do you suggest that we start accepting scientists' "strongly-held beliefs" in the validity of their research claims as equal to empirical data?Like, would you take a drug that a group of religious scientists prayed about and they believe deeply in their hearts that it will be safe and effective?Or, would you feel more comfortable taking a drug that has been tested for safety and efficacy in a rigorous manner that does not permit "belief" to stand in for data?

quote:

---

In the formal sense I was about that age too. But there is a lot going on before that to instill the notion. To prepare the ground so to speak. I sincerly doubt that you never saw the classic monkey-to-man progression drawings somewhere before then. No references to it on tv? Surely you remember the Britvic ads: showing a Neandrthal man hauling his misses around by the hair (very un-PC in todays world). "Britvic - the original of the species" Never heard the playground taunts of coloured kids being compared to monkeys?

---

Tell me, do you feel that we've all been indoctrinated to believe that the Earth is round, that the sun is the center of our solar system, that matter is made up of atoms, and that disease is caused by germs?

I was indoctrinated that gravity is the force that pulls me to the ground. Now I know it's just Intelligent Falling.

quote:

---

I'm certain that the majority of those in agreement concerning evolution say so on the grounds that they defer to people they assume know the answer. This is a clear cut case of faith.

---

"Faith" in the sense of "trust".

quote:

---

I think whenever possible, we shouldn't just refer to the experts and say, "Well, there, its settled."

---

Well sure, but are you going to get a degree in civil engineering before you drive your car over a bridge? Are you going to get a degree in immunology before accepting the premise upon which vaccines work? Are you going to immerse yourself in the study of thermodynamics and human physiology before you buy a winter coat at the store?There are countless areas of expertise that you have been mindlessly trusting the experts on for your entire life without it even occuring to you to question them. Why do you pick out evolution to reject?It's for no other reason than religious.

By and large yes (that Apollo photo of earth crossing the boundary). I don't say indoctrination is necessarily bad. Just that that is the means whereby we accept very many things.

Leaving aside the question as to whether such a thing exists in practice, are you therefore comfortable with the notion that evolution itself may have been intelligently designed by God?