Great post Pat - and while I do claim a faith tradition as a Christian - to your choice of Huck Finn - I can only (to borrow from another tradition I respect), bow and say Namaste.
"All right, then, I'll go to hell" may be the best scene, and moral lesson, ever put to paper. Anybody that strives to live by that "creed" is okay in my book.
Literally 
HUZZAH!
....."Faith and reason are both gifts from God,"
This would be true if God created the universe. But then the ebola virus, tsunamis, and boy bands would also be gifts from God.
.
You spelled Dembski's Vise Strategy incorrectly.
Did Miller actually claim that faith is the only motivation for pursuing science? I find it hard to believe that he is actually that dim.
No, Miller didn't claim that faith is the only reason for pursuing science. His statement was that some scientists are religious, and that some of these scientists are motivated by faith in their work.
You spelled Dembski's Vise Strategy incorrectly.
Since it would involve a lot of lying under oath, perhaps Vice Strategy is a more apropos description.
Pat,
Good post as always. But I don't recall Miller attacking humanists or humanism...he did send a message that religious people would be better off attacking the notion that evolution implies "anti-theism" that he sees as propagated by Dawkins and Dennett.
I bet Miller would be quite suprised at the notion that he was attacking humanists! Is humanism necessarily "anti-theistic"?
Paul, I don't think Miller is attacking all humanists, either. He simply disagrees with some non-believers who assert that science alone can lead us regarding the nature of existence, or that scientific knowledge is the only kind worth having.
As we wrote in our post, Miller believes these skeptics ignore the limitations of science, just as the creationists ignore the limits of theology.
On this point, RSR agrees with Miller.
Science, by its very nature, is limited in scope -- it looks at the natural world and relies on observation and testing. Because of those limits, it has been enormously productive.
Science is not truth so much as it is a method of inquiry.
Science can't answer any of our existential questions -- although it may inform our answers to these questions.
RSR finds theism unappealing. We don't feel, for whatever reason, the emotional appeal of organized religion in the way that men like Miller do.
Still, we are unembarrassed to say that we can see parallels between the consolation we find in literature and the arts, and the feeling of connectedness experienced by the faithful.
It is faith that gives scientists a reason to pursue science."
.
No, Miller didn't claim that faith is the only reason for pursuing science. His statement was that some scientists are religious, and that some of these scientists are motivated by faith in their work.
Silly me. I forgot to insert the missing some.
You are right about the feeling of connectedness...and I think that is the reason Dawkins can get up in the morning inspite of Ken's questioning about that. For me the rituals and communal aspects of my religion(I am Catholic)augment the sort of connection to the world around me that I get from the evolutionary perspective. This yearning for, and attempt to find connectedness maybe what ought to unite us.
Is there audio or video of the talk online someplace?
Why can Creationists &/or Intelligent Design (ID) advocates solve Sudoku Number Puzzles so quickly?
THEY JUST PUT A “G” IN ALL THE EMPTY SQUARES.
It’s just a matter of faith! It’s the same method creationists and now ID specialists resort to in trying to prove their unsustainable “intelligent design theory”. Creationists can just stop searching for reality by just assuming all gaps in current understanding and/or knowledge of evolution must be filled with a (G=god) solution. As Prof Richard Dawkins explains in chapter four of The GOD Delusion; “If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default must fill it.” Saves them having to think and question I suppose.
Much like the progress one makes by eliminating the possible numbers in each square as a Sudoku puzzle is solved, “gaps shrink as science advances and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.” This of course “worries thoughtful theologians” however the greater worry for scientists (and the rest of us) is that groups through politics or fear will walk away from the “essential part of the scientific enterprise [that is] to admit ignorance.”
Nothing is more dangerous than a, ‘I have all the answers’ arrogant preacher followed by a bunch of non-thinking ‘god-botherers’ driven by blind faith who absolve themselves from their societal responsibilities with the comfort of unquestioning feeble-minds!
Although some see Dawkins as a bit of a raver and less scientific in his arguments than he could (should) be, if you read Pascal Boyer's "Gods, Spirits and the Mental Instincts that Create Them", Dawkins’ 'emotional' approach to battling the “ID” lobby is also needed.
caliibre
Commenting by HaloScan
