Posted on 01/02/2007 8:27:12 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
The late Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard used to describe religion and science as occupying “non-overlapping magisterial authority,” or what he called NOMA. That is, science and religion occupied different “domains,” or areas of life, in which each held “the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.”
There were many problems with Gould’s approach, but at least a lack of respect for religion and religious people wasn’t one of them. Not so with some of today’s scientists.
The New York Times reported on a conference recently held in Costa Mesa, California, that turned into the secular materialist equivalent of a revival meeting.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
Another Nobel laureate, chemist Sir Harold Kroto, suggested that the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion be given to Richard Dawkins for his new book The God Delusion.
Continuing the theme, Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute called for teaching “our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty.”
In case you were in doubt about which worldview would inform this “catechesis,” she then added: “It is already so much more glorious and awesome—and even comforting—than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”
Attempts at a Gould-like détente between religion and science didn’t sit well with this crowd. A presentation by Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden on how to make evolution more acceptable to Christians was disrupted by Dawkins himself who called it “bad poetry.”
After a while, the rancor and stridency got to be too much for some of the attendees. One scientist called it a “den of vipers” where the only debate is “should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”
Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”
Fat chance. What’s behind all of this animosity? It is a worldview known as “scientism,” the belief that there is no supernatural, only a material world. And it will not countenance any rivals. It is a “jealous god.”
As Weinberg’s comments illustrate, it regards any other belief system other than scientism as irrational and the enemy of progress. Given the chance, as in the former Soviet Union, it wants to eliminate its rivals. It is no respecter of pluralism.
But this really exposes the difference between the worldviews of these scientists and Christians. We welcome science; it’s the healthy exploration of God’s world. The greatest scientists in history have been Christians who believe science was possible only in a world that was orderly and created by God. We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon.
The naturalists, on the other hand, rule out even science that tends to show intelligence, because that might lead to a God. Now, who is narrow-minded?
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Bingo. If anything, much of what science has shown us is that we are nowhere near understanding the cosmic forces that shape our universe--all we have done is scratch the surface. In many ways, it has made the case for G-d stronger. Science and religion are not incompatible.
Amen. I consider myself a scientist, but not exclusively a scientist.
Good posts!
I watched Richard Dawkins on a cable channel. He had good arguments, but I wondered why he was specifically targeting Christian and Jewish beliefs and believers.
I would suggest that if he wants a world free of the evil influnces of religious beliefs, he should start with the Mohammedans.
If he and the very interestingly named "Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute" can get any traction with them, then I shall give him further interest.
pingworthy?
The naturalists, on the other hand, rule out even science that tends to show intelligence, because that might lead to a God. Now, who is narrow-minded?
Colson writes, "We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon."
But many folks disagree. Rather than, "We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon," they would prefer to overrule any natural phenomenon that disagrees with their interpretation of scripture.
We see that in the creation vs. evolution arguments all the time.
Just think of all the sciences that might be "ruled out" under a theocratic rule:
That qualifies as the dumbest and least scientific statement I've seen in a long time.
As does the rest of your post.
I think you would do well in the old Soviet system sentencing people to the gulag.
Think we'll make it to a hundred posts before the mods pull it due to the appearance and behavior of the usual stonethrowers?
It's just "Non-overlapping magisteria." A minor nit-pick, but a nit-pick nonetheless.
I am atheist. That being said, I've never had a problem with another's religious beliefs. You believe in an all-powerful, ever living god? Fine. Flying Spaghetti Monster? Dandy. A pantheon or race of gods? Go for it.
It wouldn't surprise me if a large number of atheists were like me: apathetic to religious belief instead of opposed to it.
The distinction between "science" and "scientism" is a useful one and has been around for many years, actually. "Scientistic" people like Dawkins are fully as irrational as the absolutist religious zealot. They differ only in the content of their obsessions.
Dawkins is an excellent speaker. I'm sure the spittle-flecked spray was supplied by my own imagination.
C'est la FR.
1. Name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we change over to a theocracy.
2. Failing that, Name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we ban the lines of scientific inquiry you've named, or anything related to them. (Note that stuff like banning cloning doesn't count, because that has as little to do with opposing science as deciding not to test hypothermia treatments with Jewish subjects does.)
3. If you can even provide an example that qualifies for item 1 and/or 2, provide evidence that any significant number of Christians, Creationists or voters of any stripe supported them or took them seriously.
Now that we've disposed of the theocracy boogeyman, are you supporting the idea that a main goal of scientists should be to eliminate religion?
That qualifies as the dumbest and least scientific statement I've seen in a long time.
As does the rest of your post.
I think you would do well in the old Soviet system sentencing people to the gulag.
Three quotes from this website, in a one-day period, about a year ago:
To repeat, my point is (from post #9): Rather than, "We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon," they would prefer to overrule any natural phenomenon that disagrees with their interpretation of scripture.
ps. your personal attacks may be violating FR guidelines. Care to argue the points I raised instead of attacking me personally?
I saw an item about an appearance he made on NPR, during which he blamed Christianity for the 5,500 AIDS deaths in Africa each day. If he wants to delude himself into believing that truck drivers in Africa will start wearing condoms tomorrow if we eliminate religion, bully for him, but he shouldn't expect respect for his loopy ideas.
A pity this particular boy genius neglected his World History. If he hadn't he would know that his thesis has already been tested. It didn't work out so well for the hoi polloi in the anti-religion nirvanas of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al.
2. Failing that, Name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we ban the lines of scientific inquiry you've named, or anything related to them. (Note that stuff like banning cloning doesn't count, because that has as little to do with opposing science as deciding not to test hypothermia treatments with Jewish subjects does.)
3. If you can even provide an example that qualifies for item 1 and/or 2, provide evidence that any significant number of Christians, Creationists or voters of any stripe supported them or took them seriously.
Here is a very good example of religion superseding science. The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you?
What do you think these folks would do if they suddenly achieved political power?
Which sciences suddenly would be "discouraged" or to use a phrase from the article we are discussing, "ruled out?"
I think my point stands.
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.