John Polkinghorne - God and Science 1of3

John Polkinghorne is a former Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, Dean of Trinity Hall and President of Queens College Cambridge. Here he discusses his views on the harmony between science and faith. This is another great example of the false dichotomy which young earth creationists continually regurgitate where an acceptance of evolution equates to atheism. Polkinghorne is also the author of many books on the subject of God and science such as "Science and Creation" and "Quarks, Chaos and Christianity." Richard Dawkins said of Polkinghorne that he is one of a number of "good scientists who are sincerely religious"

Category:

Education

Tags:

• john
• polkinghorne
• science
• physics
• god
• christianity
• faith

[ndrthrdr1]

@jlangston23 There's plenty of DNA evidence that OJ did do it.

[jlangston23]

@ndrthrdr1 Incredible logic, good sir. So according to you, because there is no evidence that OJ Simpson committed the murder, we can therefore conclude that OJ Simpson did not commit the murder. Brilliant.

[jlangston23]

@BarryDong Disputes over said burden are relatively useless in theist vs atheist debates. It matters not which side the burden falls upon, if the concept even applies to the topic at hand. In law and legal theory, as well as formal debates. In both cases, there is a judge or rule present, which determines where the BOP falls. Such is not the case with the theist vs. atheist debate. In fact, in such a debate, the BOP serves as a pretty pointless concept because of evidentialism.

[jlangston23]

@BarryDong Now, even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

[jlangston23]

@BarryDong It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked.

[jlangston23]

@BarryDong The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.

[RobbOTB]

Great video have to admin (jks)

[RobbOTB]

@Jackman5953 no you like it u noob

[legoman360]

@RobbOTB SUCK MAH BALLZ

[Jackman5953]

ALL COOPER SCHOOL STUDENTS THAT WATCH THIS LIKE THIS COMMENT INSTEAD