Faith Is Blind Science Is Evidence Based Analysis

For the first thesis- “faith is blind, science is evidence based”, Dawkins suggested that religion teaches us to be satisfied with not really understanding. For instance, when one religious person faces with some difficult problem, he/she will just justify it by using the quote of “Oh, God did it!” On the other hand, Lennox suggested that blind faith can be very dangerous especially when it’s coupled with blind obedience to an evil authority but not all faith is blind faith. Faith might be carrying things that Science cant’s proved, but it is not necessary irrational. In other said, Science is very limited and it still leave many things unsolved. For example, we know that thought exists but can we observe it? No, we cant. But this doesnt …show more content…
Dawkins rose the question if universe was created, then who designed the designer to create the universe. We cannot just answered this question by saying that “A creative designer creates everything in the universe”because it gives no explaination for the questions. In Dawkins’s perception, the anthropic principle and Darwin’s biological evolution had given this question a satisfying answer .The Anthropic Principle also known as Law of Human Existence. “It is well known that our existence in this universe depends on numerous cosmological constants and parameters whose numerical values must fall within a very narrow range of values. If even a single variable were off, even slightly, we would not exist” (GotQuestions.org) . On the other hand, Darwin’s biological evolution has explained the reason for the existence of human being in this universe. Darwinism states that all organisms, including humans are arise and develop through natural selection and we compete each other to survive. Those with characteristics which increase their chance of survival will have more possiblilities to reproduce a new generation and those who are weaker will be eliminate. According to Dawkins, Darwinism has explained the doubts of many people about the existence of human being and answered the questions that initially made people impress and believe in God. But I think that Darwinism does not explain life. It just …show more content…
Moral and ethical values are absolute. There are people who think that moral and God have no connection at all as moral and rules are more relatively connect to the situation. For example, different countries have different driving rules. But, there are certain rules that were fixed and relative standards alone wont do. There are few examples of fundamental moral principles that were fixed, don’t murder, don’t cheat, don’t rob and etc. These moral principles are objective and wrong regardless how the situation is. But who set all these moral principles? It’s God. The omnipotent God had set certain moral standards to ensure that those who do good will be reward and those do bad will be punished. Moral standards that without sanction were said to be meaningless. Moreover, we human being cannot be committed to things like atoms, nucleus or molecules; the only thing that we are able to commit is only to persons. Doubtlessly, we learn morality from our parents and family members and we stick to the standards because we trust and love them. An absolute standard, one without exceptions, and the one that binds everyone, must be great and trustful enough to deserve such respect. The only one that meets the description is God. Hence, we conclude that God had set an absolute moral standard for us to follow. Neither atheist nor theist behaves and defines