Posted on 11/21/2006 8:47:29 AM PST by Theo
Logan Gage, whom I met last month in Washington, and who works for the Discovery Institute, makes what I think is a solid point here at the DC Examiner.com, about "Evangelical Atheists."
On that note, see this link at Discovery about an anti-ID talk given last week at the University of California at San Diego by Robert Pennock, paid for by the Council of Provosts of the university. What's interesting about this is that all first-quarter freshman are required to attend. Who says mandatory chapel can't be held at public universities?
I've noticed, too (I'd have to be asleep not to), the increase in anti-religious tracts from men of reason, the scientists. But why is it assumed that when someone dons a white lab coat it's the equivalent of putting on the white baptismal garment, but instead of washing away sins it removes the stain of irrationality, giving the bearer, by sheer grace of being "a scientist" access to pure rational powers of reasoning, untainted by irrational religious beliefs?
Of course, many scientists, thank God, would disagree with that caricature. They believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and somehow managed to keep their brains intact.
The more I read, the more I suspect that the debate between science and religion is not about science at all. It's fueled by evangelists for the Liberation of believing that there is no God. Yes, it takes belief. Seriously, I've read enough science--and I will read more--that for me to believe the universe and me and you just happened (despite what they tell you, they don't know how much of anything really came to be, life being just one of them) would take a leap of faith. I prefer the reasonable, if surprising, account of Christianity.
A sharp-witted excerpt: "But why is it assumed that when someone dons a white lab coat it's the equivalent of putting on the white baptismal garment, but instead of washing away sins it removes the stain of irrationality, giving the bearer, by sheer grace of being 'a scientist' access to pure rational powers of reasoning, untainted by irrational religious beliefs?"
This author sheds light on the arrogance of certain atheists (some of whom swarm on FR crevo threads), who consider their perspectives as more "scientific," and therefore more legitimate, than that of people of faith.
Who specifically are you talking about?
A more "scientific" perspective is helpful when you're talking about, well, science.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that a scientific perspective is more legitimate when talking about matters of religion. That would be absurd. So why should the reverse be true?
BTTT!
dittoes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.