OST is closed for business but its spirit survives on my blog.

Re: Richard Dawkins, Knowledge, and Faith

Re: Richard Dawkins, Knowledge, and Faith

I don’t agree that science is necessarily more formal and mathematical.  I would say that one way of doing science is formal modeling that focuses on mathematics.

I would be more inclined to say that science is systematic investigation of something.  And that systematicity plays out in different ways based on the methodological approach one uses.  In other words, a researcher might conduct a systematic investigation of the rituals of Protestant fundamentalists and never use mathematics.  Or they may study the rhetoric of witnessing as spoke by fundamentalists and never use mathematics.  These are scientific insofar as they are systematic studies of some people—but they are not formal or mathematical.

No, not really.  I don’t give a lot of thought to whether my personal religious experiences have any referent outside of my own head.  Why?  Because faith isn’t an idea; faith is a way of living, a way of relating to oneself, one’s neighbor, one’s enemy, and one’s God. 

One time my father in law asked me why I thought God is in the mind of men.  I replied that I didn’t.  However, I added, if some people do argue that God is in the mind of men, then it is probably because so many people insist that they have “beliefs” about God.

 

Richard Dawkins, Knowledge, and Faith By: Jacob (60 replies) 6 February, 2010 - 01:49