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?
How are those particular quotes any worse than the utterances of the "scientists Gone Wild" like Weinberg, Dennett and the irrepressible Dawkins?
See post 16.
consider later
Okay I have to admit that sounds a little goofy. Creation Week? Is that like Spring Break Week? Or Bike Week down at Daytona or Myrtle Beach?
I believe and know in my heart the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I believe that it is true. That being said, I also have the distinct feeling that perhaps we are not able to understand the wording, or terminology, when it comes to specific things like the creation of the world. Maybe it comes down to the translation (original vs. assumed, etc.), I just don't know. Some people perhaps understand issues in certain ways (creation), others in other ways (evolution). And I don't fault them for it. That's how they understand it. Growing up I believed the earth was 6,000 or so years old and that was it. Course I also believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
I believe that God used, as He has the ability and does use all things, evolution to bring this world about. Do I understand it or claim to understand it? No. But I know what science tells me and I believe we have developed science to possibly understand just an inkling of what has been given us.
Now of course this stance makes me a pariah to creationists because I don't believe 6 days poof and God was done. Seems like it sort of cheapens the whole thing. However it also makes me a pariah to some evolutionists because I do believe that God brought it about in some way.
You, on the other hand, paint with the broadest brush possible, as I quoted. Your quote was ignorant, and showed bile characteristic of most Stalinist types, I just pointed it out and you couldn't handle it. As to dealing with arguments, deal with that one. It was likely a point from the article you might have missed.
I can't believe you actually save those quotes. You must have entirely too much time on your hands......or too much bile to get rid of.
And please nobody come at me with 10,000 links from either side. I probably won't read 'em. Not that I wouldn't find them interesting or appreciate them it's just I believe what I believe because it's what I believe. Which makes no sense I suppose except that for me where science ends, faith has to step in.
Oh common man,
I was about to send you to the land of a 10,000 links...
In that I think he may be similar to our own beloved John Kerry. If he says something in a calm and convincing manner, we should be obliged to believe him. It is his right, obtained through education and training.
They both have resonant, pleasant-sounding voices. It is their, and our, misfortune that they lack the ability to distance themselves from their own egocentric view of reality.
;') Hey, I'm in favor of diverse viewpoints, I'm just concerned when people who disagree with me are permitted to speak. ;') ;') ;')
First, let's concentrate on what unites us: Futurama rocks!
Second, I'd bet 95% or more of atheists are just like you...but the most vocal ones, the ones the media seems to be loving right now, are of the Dawkins stripe. We should all be fighting them; I can assure you that if a Christian leader said we should ruthlessly eliminate atheism I would be standing against him or her.
Thanks for your example of tolerance. Sadly, it's an exception to the rule in this world.
I just didn't think he could possibly be interested in anything like actual discussion after his oh so unscientific post, so I doubt I'll even try.
I think there's some kind of "unscientific" proverb I could quote as well, but I've said enough for the night.
Well, the science and the questions of it are best left to scientists. The biblers' [quraners', torahers', rigvedaers' etc.] input in it is about as welcome as a scientists' opinion about which side out the liturgical vestments ought to be worn.
Now of course this stance makes me a pariah to creationists because I don't believe 6 days poof and God was done. Seems like it sort of cheapens the whole thing. However it also makes me a pariah to some evolutionists because I do believe that God brought it about in some way.
Thanks for your reasoned response. It stands out. I have no disagreement with anything you have said.
I think its time for this pariah to go to bed. I'll check back in the morning to see if anything has evolved here.
Actually, that's when I get a chance to give thanks for the shortcomings of my enemies.
Thanks for the ping. I've seen this article making the rounds.
A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
New York Times ^ | 21 November 2006 | George Johnson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742032/posts?page=76#76
I saw this article in the Mercury News this weekend with the Title, "Scientists urge colleagues to challenge religion's grip". It had a biased subtitle of "Fiery defense of reason over faith erupts at forum." That assumes that some people don't come to a rational and reasoned acceptance of Jesus Christ before faith ever really enters the picture.
When I see the unabashed attempts at indoctrination by some scientists who defend "teaching our children at a very young age" it reinforces my conclusion that we are witnessing the birth of a new religion.
It's also posted at dome of the sky http://domeofthesky.com/
Good grief, are you still hung over from New Year's Eve? Of course it doesn't stand. You were discussing a theocracy and the banning of science, I asked you for evidence of anyone calling for either, and you have provided a belief statement from a group that has called for neither thing. It's as if you were asked to provide a photo of red grass and you sent in a green one and said "Here's your grass photo."
What do you think these folks would do if they suddenly achieved political power?
What if Dennis Kucinich was elected President in a 50 state landslide? What if Yogi Bear became the Speaker of the House? Do you check under your bed each night for the CRS presidential nominee?
Oh, and by the way, where does the word "theocracy" or any other reference to politics occur in the example you've provided? And if I use the same standards you used here, couldn't I ask what First Amendment rights will be gone five minutes after Dawkins or the head of American atheists is elected president?
Which sciences suddenly would be "discouraged" or to use a phrase from the article we are discussing, "ruled out?"
Try again: Where has any Christian or Creationist called for a ban on studying these things?
You have a right to your paranoia, but unless you have some actual evidence, paranoia is what you're suffering from.
BTW, how come you didn't answer this question:
[A]re you supporting the idea that a main goal of scientists should be to eliminate religion?
Well...are you?
Growing up I believed the earth was 6,000 or so years old and that was it. Course I also believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
...your derision for those who dare oppose the Gospel According to Billbears is on display.
LOL!
So are you on board with Dawkins' agenda or not?
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.