My responses to the quoted extract:
- Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God it is a disbelief in God. Disbelief is not the same as denial, it’s the absence of belief. It does not involve faith. (Atheism is a faith the way that “not skiing” is a hobby.*)
- We do not need faith to do science. We do not need faith that the universe is accessible by the human mind. We may work on this assumption backed up by evidence. Our mobile phones depend on relativity and quantum mechanics. The observable fact that these theories are so successful would seem to be strong evidence that our understanding is linked in some way to how the universe actually works. But we are not naive, science teaches us humility. We can’t be sure that our scientific progress is moving us closer to understanding the universe. We can’t even be sure that human minds are capable of understanding the universe or answering the fundamental questions about the universe. We carry on – driven by curiosity, hope and evidence but not faith. Above all, a good scientist has the humility to accept that he or she may be mistaken.
- No one believes that the “brain is the end product of a mindless unguided process” This is not a sufficient description of the process of evolution.
- The final few concluding sentences do not seem to be supported by, or related to, any of the points in the selected passage.
I would be grateful if someone would let me know where I have made a mistake in my understanding of the text, or in my logic or reasoning.
In particular I would appreciate it if anyone could explain to me why the extract is “brilliant”.
I am not trying to be rude or offensive or a troll. I am simply puzzled that people who are clearly intelligent, well educated and have positions of power or influence can hold views that, as far as I can see, are self evidently flawed.
(* Quote attributed to Ricky Gervais)