Scientist like Dawkins and others say quite simply that God does not exist and that Muslims are deluded.

So it is really up to him to prove that God does not exist.

Modus tolens is the best way to test a hypothesis, so if Dawkins is so certain, he should be able to devise a test to prove his point.

I haven’t sent the challenge for Dawkins, so much as his own big mouth has. He says God does not exist, so let him prove it using the instruments of his rationality, science.

If he cannot, which clearly he can’t, then he should admit the greater truth, that Science lacks the instruments to test if God can exist, and is therefore an inadequate tool in this discussion.

He should then return to his day job: boosting his pitifully derivative hypothesis of the extended phenotype (which can better be described as “statement of the bleeding obvious”)

“The doctor”, congratulations on your degree; we are all very impressed.

You are clearly asking for the proof of a negative result, something you should know cannot be done.

The issue is a bit entangled. I shall try my best to present my case.

Aristotle’s theories may have been based on experience. I would also not argue with the claim that his ideas were more influenced by experience than in the case of Plato.

The point I am trying to make is this-
Even though experience have played some role in the philosophy of Aristotle, but he did not propose the doctrine of `empiricism’. He never said that all claims about the physical universe must be verified. That statement- that all claims or theories about the physical universe MUST be verified by experiment- is the central theme of empiricism.

So, in short, while some of his works may have been empirical, he was not an empiricist.

An example of this I gave already- Aristotle made the claim that human beings have the most number of teeth. All he had to do to verify that, was to open his wife’s mouth and a horse’s. He never bothered.

It was al-Haitham, first, who made a coherent case about empiricism, and applied it. Every conclusion he drew from his experiments, raised further questions, which he sought to answer through more experiment. He was not the deductive doctrinaire (if I may use that phrase).

(please delete my comment immediately above this one)

The issue is a bit entangled. I shall try my best to present my view.

Aristotle’s theories may have been based on experience. I would also not argue with the claim that his ideas were more based on experience than that of Plato.

The point I am trying to make is this-
Experience may have played some role in the philosophy of Aristotle, but he did not accept the doctrine of empiricism. He never said that all claims about the physical universe must be verified. That statement- that all claims or theories about the physical universe MUST be verified by experiment- is the central theme of empiricism.

So, in short, while some of his works may have been empirical, he was not an empiricist. Or in other words, by today’s standards, he was not empirical enough.

An example of this I gave already- aristotle made the claim that human beings have the most number of teeth. All he had to do to verify that, was to open his wife’s mouth and a horse’s. He never bothered.

It was al-Haitham, first, who made a coherent case about empiricism, and applied it. Every conclusion he drew from his experiments, raised further questions, which he sought to answer through more experiment. He was not the deductive doctrinaire (if I may use that phrase).

whilst I do not intend to present myself as some expert on Aristotle or on philosophy, I must respectfully disagree.

Aristotle was the first empiricist, whilst it may not be the modern empiricism of Locke, that is only because of the era in which Aristotle lived.

There are several good short summaries available free online, but the best is John North, which is paid content

John North on Aristotelean empiricism

http://www.springerlink.com/co.....f93bf24e2/

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Arstotle.htm

As for your description of ibn Al haitham, that is entirely the point that I have made, and the reason for the post.

You claim that Aristotole’s science was empirical. I am afraid it is the exact opposite.

Problem with Aristotle’s philosophy was that it was NOT empirical. His idea being humans can ‘think up’ the universe. Example- he contended that human beings have most number of teeth without even bothering to verify it. And the claim is false.

It was Al-Haitham in whose works we first see the idea that every claim or thesis must be verified by experiment to be acceptable. It is this idea on which Science, with a capital S, stand on.

I request you to rewrite the claim, as it may confuse readers- your blog being so popular.

I have also considered Columbus’s invasion, not discovery (as if the indigenous weren’t human beings), of the Americas as the turning point for Christendom and the first clear manifestation of Globalisation. Later, England and France would prevail. In today’s world, it is the US.