Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Yeah, I am pretty aware of that. I've read a fair variety of evolutionary theory, counter-arguments to the YEC and ID arguments and how this all pertains to religion.
The big problem I have with Dawkins is his cross of the boundary between scientific objectivity and pure advocacy. He trys to reason like a scientist but argues like a lawyer. He comes pretty close to providing a scientific alternative to religion. Close, but in my opinion too much of what he is trying to do is simply raise doubts about the certain fundamentialist factiosn of religion, without presenting enough of the other side to make his argument a fair and balanced one.
Troutman's a lawyer. Probably a very good one. However, I definitely don't want an advocate telling me how I should make the most personal and spiritual decisions of my life.
|
I can't say I agree with everything he talks about in the book. But it is one of the best/most popular counter arguments to religion out there. But I guess there are parts of faith and religion that you can't argue science with, so he was to use his logic and I guess that come across as an advocate.
But in Troutman's defence I don't believe he is trying to convince one way or the other as to whether or not to believe. But he is definitely trying to make a point that science and religion cannot employ the same means in the search for the truth or at least religion cannot claim to be using scientific ways and methods.