Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous.
About this quote
- What does it mean?
- Failing to explain something with science does not automatically validate religious explanations as correct or superior.
- In plain terms
- Science not knowing something does not mean religion is right.
- What can you take from it?
- Lack of scientific explanation is not proof of religious truth.
Where it applies
Putting it to work
Questions to consider
- What should we believe when science has no answer?
- Does a gap in knowledge prove faith?
Another view
Some scientific gaps may eventually be filled, but others might remain forever unexplained.
More from Richard Dawkins
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I wou…
Permalink to quote #5 It would be deeply depressing if the only way children could get moral values was from religion. Either from scripture, and God knows we don't want them to get…
Permalink to quote #7 Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they …
Permalink to quote #4
Related quotes
Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the 'know-nothings', the 'know-alls', and the 'no-contests'.
Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins quote #93 It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existenc…
Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins quote #99 Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal…
Albert EinsteinAlbert Einstein quote #123