My uncle, below, summed up my thoughts on Reville’s article pretty well. He is forever trying to reconcile religious belief with scientific advancement and understanding. It is an impossible task. I especially liked this :
The main alternative to religion is secular humanism. This philosophy holds that nothing greater than mankind exists and we must work out our lives entirely reliant on our own resources. Some people, but I believe no more than a small minority, can live decent and fulfilled lives drawing on this philosophy. The majority of people need the solace of religion.
Colours to the mast here – I am a secular humanist. I do not beleive the majority of people need the solace of religion. I do believe that a huge amount of people are born into and indoctrinated into religious belief from a very early age.
Earlier this year I attended a lecture given by Dr. William Reville in UCC. The lecture concerned the same ideas – religion and science. I thought Reville lacked any cogent argument whatsoever. One of his arguments included, believe it or not, that old diamond – Einstein and Newton believed in god, they were intelligent, therefore we should believe in god and god is likely to exist. Crazy. Besides the fact that it is highly questionable whether Einstein believed in god or not.
Another gem he came up with is that the Earth is in exactly the right place for life to develop, that if the conditions were even slightly different life would have never come about – therefore an intelligent designer is likely to exist. The big elephant in the room is what most people reading this might realise. Life came about partly because conditions were right, granted, but he is getting his logic all mixed up here….
Comments
5 responses to “Reville's nonsense”
To further this discussion:
There’s a lot of hype around the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). It’s an attempt to argue against the theory of evolution and godlessness in the same language. Instead of relying on theology the idea is to use science to disprove or at least plant enough reasonable doubt to not entirely dismiss the idea of an Intelligent Designer.
I don’t know where I stand on this issue Gavin, but regardless here is a book that’s gotten a lot of press. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587430045/103-1768342-1914259?v=glance
This is NOT a plug even though my father was one of the editors of this book, Gavin. I just wanted to add to this dialogue and provide readers some more text to look at if they are interested.
All input welcome John. I have looked at all the arguments in relation to this, and read extensively on it.
You might like to check out this link about science and religion. Peace! Anne.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/health_science/story/2194925p-8576233c.html
In regards to Dawkins not addressing Hitler’s misinterpretation of evolution. He addresses Social Darwinism frequently. Just read “A Devil’s Chaplain”.
Religion is the “opiate of the masses” and also appears to be the opiate that satiates William Reville; it certainly seems to dull his otherwise razor-sharp mind and logic. Like many another professional, he should stick to his last and speak about his area of expertise, biochemistry. Likewise Richard Dawkins should cinfine his musings to his domain of knowledge. Waht we need is less religion and more genuine Christianlity, or whatever set of beliefs you hold, whether religious or humanist. Too many heinous acts have been committed in the name of religion to allow non experts, whose ideas hold no more credence than yours or mine to take up any more newsprint! I wonder, knowing my brother William as I do, how often his tongue is in his cheek as he writes these tracts with a religious slant.