"Only believe something if there is scientific evidence that it is true." -- Richard Dawkins
Seems like the use of discredited "logical positivism".
2007-05-29 11:22:01 · 13 answers · asked by HAND 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
To all those saying that this is advise. Why would I take advise that can't be proven?
2007-05-29 11:32:00 · update #1
Didn't ask what he should have said, I asked for a critique of what he actually said.
2007-05-29 11:33:13 · update #2
I think I'll stick with the Ten Commandments, they at least can be proven to be true.
Contradictions indeed.
Awfully funny watching them scramble to do exactly what they claim we do with the Bible. Dawkins is indefensible.
2007-05-29 11:40:49 · update #3
The problem with that position (one problem among many), is that there is no scientific evidence to indicate that statement is true, therefore it is self-defeating. Neither can there ever be any evidence that it is a valid statement, as it is not testable.
So, it is like saying "always use bad logic to create a straw-man argument against positions you do not agree with", and we get enough of that here...
2007-05-29 11:26:36 · answer #1 · answered by doc in dallas 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It sounds like a good suggestion. Why would you believe anything without reason to believe it is true anyway?
Some comments on previous dumb remarks:
Doc in Dallas: It is a suggestion, not a claim.
tzadiq: Proof has nothing to do with evidence. Proof is used only in mathematics and logic. Nothing is "proved" scientifically. That is not how science works. Science is about collecting evidence, making predictions based on that evidence and estimating probabilities.
hand: this has nothing to do with logical positivism. And if you believe the ten commandments. Then obviously you believe working on Sunday is a mortal sin. That makes no sense by my morality. You don't prove anything in the real world. Proof is only found in mathematics and logic. You cannot prove your ten commandments that is absurd.
2007-05-29 18:38:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's pretty out of context. Philosophical positivism means there needs to be scientific proof of anything you believe. The modest proposition of Dawkins and Harris is this: what you believe should be remotely justifiable using some standard of evidence.
2007-05-29 18:32:12 · answer #3 · answered by WWTSD? 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Doc in Dallas and Last Ent Wife.
Does Dawkins believe that he exists? Can he prove it scientifically?
Does he believe anything he's ever dreamed? Can he prove scientifically that it's just a lot of nerve synapses sparking off to codify the experiences of the previous day?
Can he prove scientifically that it's better for me to argue with him than kick him in the b...s?
2007-05-30 00:24:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because it is not a statement of fact, but advice.
Having faith in something that has shown to be true is a bit pointless, by the definition of the word "faith".
What I find incredulous is when you look at the flip side of this statement:
Do not believe something if there is scientific evidence showing it to be untrue.
That people insist on believing something that has been shown to be false is just plain moronic.
2007-05-29 18:28:58 · answer #5 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The statement is not some kind of fact. It is a suggestion. I'm not sure what there is to "prove scientifically".
??
I'm afraid I'm not following your thought process here.
2007-05-29 18:33:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
What Mr.Dawkins SHOULD have said is "Unless you wish to employ faith, you should only believe something if there is scientific evidence that it is true"
His logic is impeccable. He just often forgets how gullible humans can be!
2007-05-29 18:30:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Scientific evidence that is true? Oh my. This is they guy that they all follow and is their messiah? No wonder they are confused.
You can't prove scientifically the big bang.
You can't prove scientifically their hypothesis on the origins of life.
You can't prove scientifically evolution.
And really you can't prove scientifically the existence of atheist. Just because you say you don't believe in God doesn't make it true.
2007-05-29 18:28:45 · answer #8 · answered by Tzadiq 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I won't mention any names, but that Sounds like certain Democrats in Washington.
2007-05-29 20:03:48 · answer #9 · answered by Auburn 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Doc in Dallas is the only who nailed it. Great question sweetie.
2007-05-29 20:44:27 · answer #10 · answered by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋