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?
yes, of course. I am a scientist by trade.
So let me make sure we understand each other: You believe that an obligation--indeed, a top priority--for you as a scientist is to eliminate religion from the human experience. Is that accurate?
No, it is not accurate. As I already mentioned, I have no interest in, for example, liturgical vestments fashion [which is a part of human experience]. It is simply that the sphere of religion' competence [which used to be much wider than it is now, including even claims of psychiatric nature in exorcisms] changes with time, and keeps shrinking. Whatever remains to religion- like liturgical vestments - let them have it, no objection on my part. let them handle the things 'not of this world". With the things of this world I feel myself able to deal without their input, which input to me is 100% hindrance.
Dawkins and his ilk have stood up on your plane and said, "This is a hijacking." What's your call?
The secular claims of any religious worldview ARE to be wiped out. Whatever remains [not much, IMHO], let it be.
He's not talking about secular claims, he's talking about totally annihliating the concept of religion. what are you going to do about it?
"what are you going to do about it?" - let it wither on the vine, that's what. One should let the nature take its course, and not rush it. The labor market dynamics and an occasional Dover decision would do the rest.
Everybody has a religion.
Some just don't realize their own.
Good points from Mr. Colson.
LOL, sure it does. I said I accepted the Word as the inerrant Word of God. But I also accept that man over time may not fully understand the intended meaning of the Word. Example of lost teaching, the Pyramids. We don't understand fully how they were built and yet there they are. The Egyptians had an understanding of engineering that we have just begun to 'regrasp' in the past century.
Meanings of words change overtime as well. Just within the past 500 years, I could give you a list of important words in our own language that have changed meanings completely from their original. If you're living 900+ years (which I don't doubt because the Bible says it) are you going to beyond a shadow of a doubt state that 'year' meant 365 days? What if it meant 300 days? Or 500 days? Just a few weeks either way seriously throws off the 6000 years. In our own written history, the year has been defined and redefined to fit cultural, religious, and scientific purposes (i.e. Romans 300 day year, French 360 day year, Gregorian calendar, etc.)
...your derision for those who dare oppose the Gospel According to Billbears is on display
Perhaps it is in some way. But I also know that nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Where did this number come from? Some guy x number of years ago sitting down and working backwards through genealogy records found in the Word? And it's accepted as fact? Give me a break.
The Good Lord gave us minds to reason. He gave us the ability to discern between fact and fiction. I am not going to belittle the ability to reason(what God gave me) to believe that He would present me with all this data just to have the 'faith' to refute it and say 'nope, 6000 years you're right!!'
While that's likely true, at least I've seen nothing that would cause me to disagree with your statement, it's the VERY vocal minority that ruins it for the rest of you guys.
There have been several experiments in social engineering that specifically declared a belief in God to be bad, just as Weinberg and his bunch wish to do. How did science fair with the Khmer Rouge? in Mao's PRC? in Stalin's Soviet Union? etc. etc. etc.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That's where theistic thinking can lead you. What's so bad about that?
Would you rather live under an atheistic/non-thesitic form of government? Could you name me one atheistic/non-theistic form of government that was, or is, worth living under? Do you know of any that were or are benevolent?
The Soviet Union was atheistic/non-theistic and did OK in the realm of science and technology but just about destroyed it's society and culture. Is that what you want?
already posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1761326/posts
>>What’s behind all of this animosity? <<
I can tell you what is behind it: They intuitively know they are the next Dan Rather. They are petrified!
3,000 American dead in Iraq
or...
about 6 million American dead in Abortion 'clinics':
Which ones YOU mourn will indicate your politics!
Isa 48:3 ... I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I shewed them; I did [them] SUDDENLY, and they came to pass.
Indeed!!
Genesis 1
This is a GOD who creates by speaking; but; how LONG did it take?
Now Jesus was a man who had God-like powers. Was HE God? The Book says so.......
NIV Colossians 1:13-17
13. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
NIV Revelation 4:11
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
NIV Revelation 10:6
And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!
Notice that when this man speaks, things happen RIGHT NOW! Not after some times passes and Nature takes it's course.
NIV Matthew 8:2-3
2. A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
3. Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he
NIV Matthew 21:19
Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he
NIV Mark 1:41-42
41. Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he
NIV Mark 5:41-42
41. He took her by the hand and
NIV Mark 10:51-52
51. "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him. The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
52. "Go,"
NIV Luke 5:13
Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he
NIV Luke 5:24-25
24. But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." He
NIV Luke 8:44
She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and Immediately her bleeding stopped.
NIV Luke 13:12-13
12. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and
NIV Luke 18:42-43
42. Jesus
NIV Acts 9:33-35
33. There he found a man named Aeneas, a paralytic who had been bedridden for eight years.
34. "Aeneas," Peter
NIV Matthew 8:13
Then Jesus
NIV Matthew 15:28
Then Jesus
Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant; how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???
What about those that remember; but fail to understand?
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.