Richard Dawkins has a charming, and very I think interesting view of the relationship...
Join the conversation
Log in or create an account to leave a comment
Log In
Alister McGrath:
Richard Dawkins has a charming, and very I think interesting view of the relationship between science and religion. They're at war with each other. And in the end, one's got to win. And it's going to be science. It's a very naive view. It's based on a complete historical misrepresentation of the way science and religion has been directed. Dawkins seems to think that scientific description is an anti-religious argument. Describing how something happens scientifically, somehow explains it away. It doesn't. But the questions of purpose, intentionality, the question why, still remain there on the table
Richard Dawkins has a charming, and very I think interesting view of the relationship between science and religion. They're at war with each other. And in the end, one's got to win. And it's going to be science. It's a very naive view. It's based on a complete historical misrepresentation of the way science and religion has been directed. Dawkins seems to think that scientific description is an anti-religious argument. Describing how something happens scientifically, somehow explains it away. It doesn't. But the questions of purpose, intentionality, the question why, still remain there on the table
Full Transcript
00:00:01.000 --> 00:00:03.004
Richard Dawkins has a charming
00:00:03.004 --> 00:00:05.008
and very I think interesting view
00:00:05.008 --> 00:00:08.002
of the relationship between science and religion
00:00:08.002 --> 00:00:09.007
They're at war with each other
00:00:09.007 --> 00:00:11.009
and in the end one's got to win
00:00:11.009 --> 00:00:14.000
And it's going to be science
00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:15.006
It's a very na ve view
00:00:15.006 --> 00:00:19.003
It's based on a complete historical misrepresentation
00:00:19.003 --> 00:00:21.007
of the way science and religion have interacted
00:00:21.007 --> 00:00:25.000
Dawkins seems to think that scientific description
00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:27.003
is an anti religious argument
00:00:27.003 --> 00:00:30.003
Describing how something happens scientifically
00:00:30.004 --> 00:00:32.006
somehow explains it away
00:00:32.005 --> 00:00:33.006
It doesn't
00:00:33.006 --> 00:00:36.005
But the questions of purpose intentionality
00:00:36.005 --> 00:00:38.000
The question why
00:00:38.001 --> 00:00:40.005
still remain there on the table
Want This Clip in HD?
Upgrade for HD/4K downloads and unlimited access. Upgrade now →
Movie Summary
Ben Stein examines the issue of academic freedom and decides that there is none when it comes to the debate over intelligent design.
