Religion has stepped on science's turf?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is one of the beliefs of the New atheists as outlined in the Wikipedia entry on New Atheism.

What do people mean by it and what are the examples?

[jeremyp]

I imagine it refers to things like creationists denying the reality of evolution.

[Roses]

Biblical literalists get upset when science undermines the credibility of their faith.

[Maeght]

This is one of the beliefs of the New atheists as outlined in the Wikipedia entry on New Atheism.

What do people mean by it and what are the examples?

In the Wikipedia page Dawkins is quoted as saying "It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."

Since he said it, it seems sensible to take that as 'what people mean by it' don't you think rather than asking people who haven't used the phrase.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the Wikipedia page Dawkins is quoted as saying "It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."

Since he said it, it seems sensible to take that as 'what people mean by it' don't you think rather than asking people who haven't used the phrase.

But what does it mean?

What are existence claims?

How do they tie in withDawkins dogmatic agnosticism about origins and eternity?

Isn't this just intellectual imperialism on his part?

What then are scientific existence claims?

[Stranger]

But what does it mean?

What are existence claims?

...

I think you can probably search that interweb-thingy to find out what he meant. I feel under no obligation to do it for you, still less to look through his book (I assume it's in The God Delusion but that bit obviously made such an impression on me that I've completely forgotten what his point was), and even less than that to defend his claims if I don't agree with them.

Dawkins dogmatic agnosticism about origins and eternity?

What's "dogmatic agnosticism"?

[ProfessorDavey]

This is one of the beliefs of the New atheists as outlined in the Wikipedia entry on New Atheism.

What do people mean by it and what are the examples?

From Wikipedia this appears to be part of a direct quote from Richard Dawkins. So I've no idea why you are asking us what it means - ask Dawkins, or if he is unavailable to you, why not read the book the quote comes from where I presume he will elaborate on what he means.

[Maeght]

But what does it mean?

What are existence claims?

How do they tie in with Dawkins dogmatic agnosticism about origins and eternity?

Isn't this just intellectual imperialism on his part?

What then are scientific existence claims?

If you want to know what Dawkins meant then ask him or research where he has explained what he meant. If you are asking what others think he might have meant then that is different of course.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From Wikipedia this appears to be part of a direct quote from Richard Dawkins. So I've no idea why you are asking us what it means - ask Dawkins, or if he is unavailable to you, why not read the book the quote comes from where I presume he will elaborate on what he means.

I take it you are confused about what existence claims means and would agree that the good Dawkter is just whittling on.

At a guess I think Dawkins is probably saying that all claims are ultimately Science claims hence the accusation of scientism from atheist philosopher of science Massimo pigliacci of scientism as a mark of New Atheism.

Of course this is also supported by the hypocrisy of people like Harris and frankly Dawkins researching a scientific basis for morality.

[ProfessorDavey]

I take it you are confused about what existence claims means and would agree that the good Dawkter is just whittling on.

Nope - all I am saying is that if you want to understand the direct quote from a person it is best to ask that person, or at least read the book in which that quote appears. No point in asking me because I am not Richard Dawkins, nor have I read any of his books.

At a guess I think Dawkins is probably saying that all claims are ultimately Science claims hence the accusation of scientism from atheist philosopher of science Massimo pigliacci of scientism as a mark of New Atheism.

Then I suggest you either ask Dawkins directly or read his books.

Of course this is also supported by the hypocrisy of people like Harris and frankly Dawkins researching a scientific basis for morality.

If you want to know more I suggest you direct those questions to Dawkins and Harris, or read their books. For the record I've never read any of Harris' books either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to know more I suggest you direct those questions to Dawkins and Harris, or read their books. For the record I've never read any of Harris' books either.

Their is nothing to ask about the palpable humbug of complaining on one hand that religion is stepping on sciences turf while at the same time saying that of course science can engage in moral and value questions.

And if you are interested in that I suggest YOU direct any enquiry to Dawkins or Harris.

[ProfessorDavey]

Their is nothing to ask about the palpable humbug of complaining on one hand that religion is stepping on sciences turf while at the same time saying that of course science can engage in moral and value questions.

Then why did you raise it in the first place Vlad?

And if you are interested in that I suggest YOU direct any enquiry to Dawkins or Harris.

I'm not the one asking the questions though am I - that would be you, in your OP and therefore if you want to know more I suggest you ask Dawkins and Harris of at the very least spend some time reading the books they have written, where you might find the answers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then why did you raise it in the first place Vlad?
I'm not the one asking the questions though am I - that would be you, in your OP and therefore if you want to know more I suggest you ask Dawkins and Harris of at the very least spend some time reading the books they have written, where you might find the answers.

I see nothing wrong in asking people who have read the God delusion, and other works from the recent stable of authors who have wished to advertise their atheism and opposition
to religion and agree or endorse those books, to comment why it is that they a)apparently understand what Dawkins means b) apparently nod agreeable heads to it.

[Gordon]

I see nothing wrong in asking people who have read the God delusion, and other works from the recent stable of authors who have wished to advertise their atheism and opposition
to religion and agree or endorse those books, to comment why it is that they a)apparently understand what Dawkins means b) apparently nod agreeable heads to it.

Leaving aside yet another of your army of straw men, perhaps we know better than to feed your paranoia about atheists and atheism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see nothing wrong in asking people who have read the God delusion, and other works from the recent stable of authors who have wished to advertise their atheism and opposition
to religion and agree or endorse those books, to comment why it is that they a)apparently understand what Dawkins means b) apparently nod agreeable heads to it.

Then why are you raising this with me, when I specifically pointed out (and have done so many times on this MB) that I have never read the God Delusion or anything else by Dawkins nor anything by Harris.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then why are you raising this with me, when I specifically pointed out (and have done so many times on this MB) that I have never read the God Delusion or anything else by Dawkins nor anything by Harris.

This thread was not aimed at you....in fact who did you say you were again...it is aimed at the general atheist readership of Dawkins around here.....if folks are saying that no one round here has read The God Delusion then you've made an old godbotherer very happy!

[Sebastian Toe]

This thread was not aimed at you....in fact who did you say you were again...it is aimed at the general atheist readership of Dawkins around here.....if folks are saying that no one round here has read The God Delusion then you've made an old godbotherer very happy!

I have read the book in question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have read the book in question.

Oh.....you'd have to go and put the mockers on it.

[SteveH]

So've I. I wasn't impressed. He should stick to zoology - he's no philosopher.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have read the book in question.

What is your interpretation of the term "existence claims" and indeed why they should come exclusively under the umbrella of science.

[Sebastian Toe]

What is your interpretation of the term "existence claims" and indeed why they should come exclusively under the umbrella of science.

Just because I have read the book, doesn't mean that I am going to engage in some kind of conversation with you.
I have much more rewarding things to do do with my time.
Now please excuse me whilst I go take a dump.

[ProfessorDavey]

This thread was not aimed at you....in fact who did you say you were again...it is aimed at the general atheist readership of Dawkins around here.....if folks are saying that no one round here has read The God Delusion then you've made an old godbotherer very happy!

Why on earth does it bother you so much that people might have read The God Delusion?

[Roses]

This thread was not aimed at you....in fact who did you say you were again...it is aimed at the general atheist readership of Dawkins around here.....if folks are saying that no one round here has read The God Delusion then you've made an old godbotherer very happy!

As a god botherer I bet you don't make the sky fairy very happy with your comments.  

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just because I have read the book, doesn't mean that I am going to engage in some kind of conversation with you.
I have much more rewarding things to do do with my time.
Now please excuse me whilst I go take a dump.

I think you already have.

[Stranger]

Why on earth does it bother you so much that people might have read The God Delusion?

He has this weird obsession with Richard Dawkins...