An Open Letter

[The ClayTaurus]

Some of you will like this
Some of you will hate this
Some of you won't really care.

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/richard/dawkins.htm

 

[5stringJeff]

Does that mean that Richard Dawkins is against using the "traditional" scientific method? [/sarcasm]

Honestly, though, one cannot logically ignore the use of tradition, authority, or revelation. Take authority, for example. If there is a Higher Being, then by definition, He/She/It is on a higher plane of existence than we are. Therefore, the Higher Being is able to speak with authority on supernatural matters. Or take revelation. Here's the Christian argument for the possibility of divine revelation:

1. God created mankind.
2. Mankind can communicate.
3. God cannot give something to His creation (i.e. the ability to communicate) that He Himself does not possess.
4. Therefore, God is able to communicate.
5. God, being omniscient, is able to determine how to communicate with his creation.
6. Therefore (from 4 & 5), God communicates with His creation. This is what we (or Richard Dawkins) would call revelation.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Does that mean that Richard Dawkins is against using the "traditional" scientific method? [/sarcasm]

Honestly, though, one cannot logically ignore the use of tradition, authority, or revelation. Take authority, for example. If there is a Higher Being, then by definition, He/She/It is on a higher plane of existence than we are. Therefore, the Higher Being is able to speak with authority on supernatural matters. Or take revelation. Here's the Christian argument for the possibility of divine revelation:

1. God created mankind.
2. Mankind can communicate.
3. God cannot give something to His creation (i.e. the ability to communicate) that He Himself does not possess.
4. Therefore, God is able to communicate.
5. God, being omniscient, is able to determine how to communicate with his creation.
6. Therefore (from 4 & 5), God communicates with His creation. This is what we (or Richard Dawkins) would call revelation.

I think the point he was trying to make regarding revelation is that you can not trust someone who claims revelation. It's too easy to just say "God told me." That doesn't infer that God does not speak to anyone, but rather there is no way to verify if it is true or not, unless God tells you "I told so and so this."

I don't really agree with all the arguments he made, although I think he's scraping at some decent points here and there.