|
Religion talks about 'should'. Science talks about 'is'. You cannot get from an 'is' to a 'should'. Not without calling on a value system. When it comes to values, there is no such thing as 'supporting evidence.'
In that speech I quoted, Dawkins admits that science has little to say about ethics, which is (or should be :evilgrin:) IMO the core of religion. "When the religious education class turns to ethics, I don't think science actually has a lot to say, and I would replace it with rational moral philosophy." He does not, however, clearly admit that his 'rational moral philosophy' is not scientific. It is just another religion.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore