We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Dawkins conclusion in his argument regarding science versus theology is that ‘theology’ should not be considered a subject. This is a bold conclusion to bring out as Oxford University, at which Dawkins lectures, incites and supports the study of theology at their establishment. Dawkins ‘covering’ premise is that theology has done nothing to help mankind uncover the origin of its existence, and that science can tell us many things about our past and our origins as beings.

The best essay writers are ready to impress your teacher.
Make an order now!


Proceed

In his second paragraph, Dawkins streams off a list of various non-linked facts that science has brought us to understand, including anti-theological Darwinian selection. These facts however true, tell us not of the little religion has achieved but instead of the importance that scientific research has in our society. This listing of facts has purposefully been placed by Dawkins not to argue the existence of religion or the consideration of theology’s place in education, but instead to give science the factual high ground when he continues the argument with his next premises.

GET A BETTER ESSAY OUR TEAM IS READY TO WRITE
YOUR ESSAY ON
Dawkins and Theology JUST FROM $13/PAGE

Therefore, we cannot consider these facts as premises towards Dawkin’s conclusion as they are merely included to ‘dress-up’ science with facts that sound impressive but do nothing to compare science to theology. Theology cannot be argued on the basis of scientific fact as it would surely lose, instead the prejudice theology spouts is supported by the assumption that those who believe in the prejudice in theology, do not question the fact associated with it.

The next paragraph of Dawkins is no better as it is again, filled with rhetoric and scientific achievements. Dawkins tells of theology as deciding that pestilence is due to the wages of sin, however, this dated outlook on religion does not configure with modern theologians views on many aspects of theology. Was it not science in fact that argued of many of today’s common scientific facts to be false? Was it not in fact early science that led many to believe that a rise in pestilence was due to a many number of false issues?

 

Share this Post!

Kylie Garcia

Hi, would you like to get professional writing help?

Click here to start