Couldn’t you also say, however, that the structures (just like words, theories, institutions in general) are necessary constructs for understanding? Part of the “assumptions” that we take in order to discern meaning? For example, in one sense we can really know nothing without words (like Helen Keller before she learned the word water), but words themselves can be a constrictive mechanism if we fail to distinguish distinctions in their nuance. So, is organized religion restrictive? Yes, in one sense. In another sense, it is also a means of conveying a complex reality that would be very difficult to get at without it.

Thanks again,
JM

I am Catholic, arguably the most organized of organized religions. (Although, I would contend it’s not organized at all–we could never have pulled off the DiVincci Code When people critique “organized religion,” they are often only looking at the structure of the religion. One book that looks at the Catholic religion in a multi-faceted perspective is “Models of the Church” by Cardinal Avery Dulles. (Nephew of John Foster Dulles.) Structure alone is always a double-edged sword, but it is often a necessary construct, like a ladder or a bridge, to move people to the space in between structure.

Where I think the problems come to play in my religion and other religions is where they mistake the structure (externals) for the truth (internal reality). In this respect, it is no different from science which, as you so aptly point out, does not distinguish theory from the reality which it is trying to describe.

“God” is that “name” we give to the metaphysical principle that gives “order” to the universe–”is order”–and indeed, is the underlying source of Being that makes the mechanism of evolution “possible.”

Ian

While I agree with your comments on the surface,
I am not sure that I understand how your
philosophical and religious critique follows from your
understanding of a scientific method;
presuming the concepts are consistent.
I.e., what is implied by the idea of an
omnipotent being, contingent, spiritual,
and or imaginary being?
For Dawkins, I presume God is merely the
label for an imaginary being.

If so, it could also be levelled at him,
that the culture behind the big ban theory,
a uniform cosmic microwave background and
natural selection respectively, correspond to a neo
creationist mythology, moral judgements
being either or; free from ethical responsibility,
heaven being a place for the elite;
the oligarchs, if it is hear on Earth.
So, if Dawkins follows what could
be taken to be an increasingly unpopular
part of our folk psychology, it would appear
he is not really an atheist at all.
That is, it could be argued that his understanding
of science is his religion.
One label has just been swapped for the other.
The old dogma has had a makeover.

Thank you,

Paul

My argument with Dawkins is not over scientific method, for I’m a scientist/engineer. I believe strongly in evolution, the scientific method, etc.

We disagree over philosophy. Dawkins utters all kinds of metaphysical statements without his knowing it. The “fact” that the mechanism of evolution even exists and exists everywhere is a philosophical/metaphysical statement. And, even more basic, the “fact” that the universe is intelligible and orderly are historically due to religion, not science.

The point is that science owes all kinds of debts to philosophy and religion that it never acknowledges.

And, what is “responsible” for the “fact” that we live in a universe governed by evolution? If you like, we can call that “entity” responsible God.

Ian

Would you therefore be kind enough,
to elaborate on the differences between your
and Dawkins’s understanding of a scientific method?;
give me some clue how you would
distinguish the value of one function
from an other

Thank you for any feedback in advance,

Paul