Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC




Date/Time 01 Aug 2015 9:29:40pm
If I hadn't read a reasonable amount of Dawkins' books this article would serve to make me confused about his stance on science. It begins by asserting "Dawkins's main argument is that science proves things", then goes on to contradictorily state "Dawkins is so right to emphasise the provisionality of scientific theories". My reading is that his main argument is not 'that science proves things', but that, unlike mystical approaches, it is a reliable way of gathering and interpreting evidence to support propositions about the material universe. The role of science is not to confer certainty but to quantify probability. Where propositions about the material universe conflict and some of those ideas are supported by a satisfactory amount of material evidence and some are not, the balance of probability lies with the former.

It's correct to observe that 'science moves on' but odd to do it in a way which implies that this is not its major strength. If scientific ideas did not change to accommodate growing or contradictory evidence then science would be no more useful a tool for understanding the material universe than mysticism.

A question such as "What are we all here for?" is certainly a real question in the trivial sense that people have asked it, but it presupposes a purpose which may be discovered and I get less sure with the passing of every year that the presupposition itself is legitimate. Without the presupposition the question becomes a simple statement – "We are here". Science has told us a great deal about that existence and almost certainly has a great deal more to tell us. Mysticism is an impediment to that investigation.