In response to:

When Science Points To God

vmercader Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 2:52 AM
D'Souza never argued for anything valuable, this one is an example. and No, Science has never pointed to god. Here are key points in his (futile) article: 1.) He doesn't have, in the whole length of writing, any indication of why science points to 'god'. 2.) He's only ranting about Atheists' billboards that are not in anyway related to science (such as bus billboards that say, "Imagine... no Religion" — well because, marketing a full-detail explanation of Evolution and why there is no "god-hand" involve in it is just not a practical Billboard. 3.) And, his conclusion is, "because atheists did not explain Science on billboards (but can explain it on a 2 hour video), therefore Science points to god". Non Sequitur Fallacy (Does not Follow)
50crowley Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 5:45 PM
2) D'Souza is pointing out the absurdity of marketing "truth". By putting up billboards advertising science, the natural assumption is that science somehow feels pressured by the "truth" that religion offers. In today's zeitgeist, "truth" is hardly ever debated.

3) I don't think anyone believes a billboard can completely explain evolution/science. D'Souza is commenting on billboards like "Imagine... no Religion" that offer no invitation to explore further. They are statements presented as truth, when they are still relatively fringe opinions/theories.
50crowley Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 5:46 PM
When I say "truth", I mean "accepted truth". I probably should have been more clear about that.
50crowley Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 5:36 PM
1) I feel it is important to point out that the title of the article is "When Science Points To God" and not "Why Science Points To God". D'Souza references an article in Discover Magazine that offers evidence supporting the latter proposition, but D'Souza's article is merely a commentary and the intention is not to offer any addition evidence.
That being said, he does offer a summarization of the "fine tuning" argument by stating " has for three centuries been showing that man does not occupy a privileged position in the cosmos, and now it seems like he does", but he does not go into very much detail on this or other "proofs".

Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science. It is perhaps no surprise that several leading atheists—from biologist Richard Dawkins to cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker to physicist Victor Stenger—are also leading scientists. The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.

But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God....