1. Man and God

Comment #103378 by garhung on December 25, 2007 at 10:26 am

This is a leading article by The Times? The Times? The arguments in it are full of logical fallacies (as many posts here have pointed out) and the blatant mispresentation of Prof. Dawkins is so appalling. (Or, if the writer hasn't read the book by Prof. Dawkins, so unprofessional.)

I am a Chinese from Hong Kong. I thought we had bad media only in Asia but obviously I was wrong. When has the British media started to sink that low?

2. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90759 by garhung on November 26, 2007 at 9:26 am

I'm really tired of steve99's post starting with "He (Paul Davies) is not saying..."

It does not require faith to believe that the universe follows laws.

He is not saying that the universe does not follow laws. What he is arguing about is where those laws come from. He is attempting to point out that it is flawed to assume as given that those laws come from outside of the universe.

I know Paul Davies is not saying that the universe does not follow laws. What we are asking is that (as you seem to be an expert on what he says and what he does not say) does Paul Davies say "it requires faith to believe" that the universe follow laws, if we don't know where those laws come from?

3. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90502 by garhung on November 25, 2007 at 11:04 am

I'm new here.

steve99 keeps saying people here are misrepresenting Paul Davies, but I think he is actually the one doing the mispresentation:

No, I don't believe that is what he is doing. He is saying that some scientists have an unquestioning belief in certain principles that they haven't even considered challenging.

But at the end of Paul Davies' article he says:

But until SCIENCE comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, ITS claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

So how could "Science" as an institution become "some scientists"?