Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I actually find it kind of worrying that science has been taken up by the more militant crusading atheists (haha, see how easy labels are?), specifically Dawkins. It categorizes science as aggressive and confrontational. Worse, it makes it look like an ideology, when all science is is a state of mind, a cognitive tool that best tells us about our physical surroundings and history.
|
I wonder if it is intentional or not. I think it happens because science is easy to associate with philosophical naturalism, and science certainly easier to say. In our age of 2 minute sound bites and such, getting a message across is important and maybe science does get promoted as a philosophy.
But I don't think even Dawkins intends to do that, maybe it just comes across that way because science is being used as a tool to analyze and refute claims about and of religion. So when someone says "science gives us an explanation for x, so this reason y from religion isn't needed" people maybe perceive that as science replacing religion? It isn't it's just removing the requirement for it in some areas.
I don't think Dawkins ever promotes science as an ideology directly.