Name: Anonymous 2006-10-23 13:33
So Richard Dawkins makes a good point that when religion makes a scientific statement, it's only fair game for scientists to examine such claims and evaluate them. Religion, in his view, is only a matter outside of science so long as religion makes no claims about science.
His example is as follows.
What would happen if archeologists found some sort of great scientific evidence, DNA or such, that pretty much conclusively showed Jesus not only lived, but really was born of a virgin. And it gets published and peer reviewed and all that. How many theologeans (at least christian ones) would hesitate and say, "Well, that's science, religion is a matter of faith."
They only use that excuse when science doesn't agree with them. Again, we see religion has a big double standard.
His example is as follows.
What would happen if archeologists found some sort of great scientific evidence, DNA or such, that pretty much conclusively showed Jesus not only lived, but really was born of a virgin. And it gets published and peer reviewed and all that. How many theologeans (at least christian ones) would hesitate and say, "Well, that's science, religion is a matter of faith."
They only use that excuse when science doesn't agree with them. Again, we see religion has a big double standard.