How can richard dawkins rubbish the notion of religion yet say that scientific teaching is fact?

Question

Whilst i agree with him that religious teachings and notions of God are nonsense, how can he say that science is fact when we can really never claim to know anything for certain. If scientists are constantly proving themselves wrong, then we can never be sure of anything, so how can he be so sure of himself???

Jeff H....whilst i dont believe we can prove such things, I detest such an easy way out as to just decide that because we dont know, then it must be the work of a god....i would forever rather be an enlightened cynic than a blind sheep...

Answer 1

Really, a fact is just a working explanation of some phenomenon or other that could be replaced if a better explanation comes along. But some of these working explanations have been around so long with so much evidence supporting them that it's justifiable to call them "facts."

The thing that makes science different from religion is that a hypothesis in science is falsifiable. If a scientist states a hypothesis and what happens shows that hypothesis to be false, the scientist can't just explain it away and say, "I'm still right!" That is the luxury of the preacher.

Dawkins does not find certainty in individual scientific facts but in the process of science that either disproves or gathers support for hypotheses. The very fact that scientists are often shown to be wrong is only proof of their honesty.

Answer 2

he notion of 'fact' in the scientific world is simply that a thing is considered fact if it can be demonstrated independently by anyone else in the world.
We say that the acceleration of graity being 9.8 m/s² is a fact because anyone on the planet can measure it.
We say that in a right triangle with sidea a and b and hypotenuse c that the relation a² + b² = c² is a fact because it can be logically proven from first principles by anyone on the planet.
Theorems are often stated as 'fact' simply because they work, they describe what can be seen and measured, and there are no credible counter-theories which contradict them.
But 'faith' is a totally different matter. No proof is offered, because none exists. It is all about the intensity of the qualia of the individuals belief in.... whatever they believe in. And that's something I (nor anyone else) can never experience because I don't experience the same qualia that they experience. And neither does anyone else.

Doug

Answer 3

firstly, you must differentiate between science and scientific theory. I don't think science proves itself wrong, rather, it can only prove or disprove theories of a scientific nature. Science is based on fact derived through observation. Everything else is theoretical until proven to be true, either through recorded observation or recorded experimentation. therefore science does give rock solid answers.

i think Dawkins' decision to disregard religion is based on the idea that science continuously proves theories to be either correct or incorrect, it therefore continuously progresses, eventually reaching an answer very much closer to the truth. than the original answer to the original theory.

Religion on the other hand bases itself on a theory that can never be systematically proven or disproven it is therefore stuck with an notion that can never progress, therefore religion is in fact stuck in a state of limbo (ironically).

Answer 4

Though the notion of science is rebutted as if it were garble, ethically, science is more fullfilling then religion. A theory of science cognifies the observations into parched parcels and so not only determines the outcomes but also the causes and hobbles in embodying these theories in each rill of life, coldly stating the obvious, that religion is not applicable in life.

Answer 5

Scientists are not 'constantly proving themselves wrong' at all. They are just constantly updating on evidence through research. Research which is verified by a large community of others who work through the ideas and evidence.

Religion is just the result of ancient guesswork.

Answer 6

I checked and this looks an sturdy quote. in my view, it somewhat is undesirable! a clinical theory is a proof for the reachable info. fantastically lots, he's asserting that faith is sponsored up by using utilising clinical info, that's amazingly incorrect. i do no longer think of it somewhat is taken out of context, yet i might have an pastime to draw close what he has to declare next. What he will would desire to have pronounced is faith normally makes scientifically testable claims (hypothesis). by using utilising finding out the claims, we can see that they fail, for that reason, faith is going in opposition to the clinical info.

Answer 7

Just an opinion, but if you disagree with RD, best thing to do is just ignore it rather than publicizing it.

But I agree with you. Neither side can claim 100% accuracy.

Answer 8

I don't really know. Science isn't "true" per se, it tries to claim that it is correct using circular logic, but it is nevertheless pretty accurate, or else we wouldn't be using it.

Answer 9

Science may be limited, knowledge is utmost limited, ignorance is ever glowing, dazzling, everlasting.

The adepts of science and knowledge have ever to struggle against ignorance, ever contradicting their colleagues and opponents, ever to explain why things are not the way they think that we, real or imaginary ever-paying interlocutors, think things are.

Thus science and knowledge have ever to struggle, well-knowing that theirs is an apriori lost battle, because ignorance is all-powerful and thus bearing in itself the scent of glowing infinity.

Ignorance is the true science of God!

Answer 10

Because we all need to believe in something. And can you prove that teachings of God are nonsense? By your own statment you cannot and neither can Dawkins. For all we know, God is the ulitmate scientist and we are all simulations running on his computer.