|
Richard Dawkins "The Enemies of Reason' on UK TV | by jeff_uk | 2007-08-08 10:28:29 |
|
Not impressed with Dawkins, since he doesn't under | by shminux | 2007-08-08 10:36:46 |
|
How can they not be opposite? | by jeff_uk | 2007-08-08 10:55:22 |
| The problems really only come out when |
by Peace_man |
2007-08-08 11:00:07 |
religion strays into the area reserved for science, and vice versa.
Science tells us how, religion tells us why. Also, science is (mostly) mute on things like how to relate to others. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Dawkins addresses this, too. | by Phoon | 2007-08-08 11:07:12 |
|
Heh. Maybe I'm interpreting things wrong. | by Peace_man | 2007-08-08 11:14:38 |
|
Does and answers, just not in a measurable scienti | by shminux | 2007-08-08 11:18:29 |
|
If it takes place in the physical world, | by Phoon | 2007-08-08 11:50:04 |
|
Dawkins seems to address many things | by hadji | 2007-08-08 12:18:15 |
|
He could just as easily have phrased it | by Phoon | 2007-08-08 12:37:51 |
|
Neither assumption can be proven correct | by hadji | 2007-08-08 13:00:44 |
|
I can prove that there is little reason to believe | by Phoon | 2007-08-08 13:11:21 |
|
I'm happy for you. | by hadji | 2007-08-08 13:26:42 |
|
I don't understand... | by Nath3 | 2007-08-08 15:21:42 |
|
That's fine. You don't have to understand how. | by hadji | 2007-08-08 20:22:38 |
|
Informative as always. | by tallastro | 2007-08-08 21:29:09 |
|
Look at it this way, and tell me if this | by hadji | 2007-08-08 22:00:59 |
|
I mean no hostility. | by Nath3 | 2007-08-08 21:58:47 |
|
I think what I mean is live and let live. | by hadji | 2007-08-08 22:11:44 |
|
I guess, simply put, you started your comment with | by hadji | 2007-08-08 22:15:37 |
