jump to navigation

What happens when you walk the final plank June 29, 2006

Posted by Administrator in atheism, Cultural Pessimism.
trackback

You get to be like PZ, in his latest madness, in which he now intones that science has an inevitable charge to disprove religion.

The killer quote:

there will be howls of protest that science must not lead people towards godlessness…but I say it’s about time. . .Most importantly, shying away from the fact that it is a god-free scientific worldview that makes evolutionary biology powerful and persuasive impairs our ability to promote good science.

God alone knows what that good science will look like.  The clones from The Island?  The replicants from Bladerunner?
The man is lost.  Get out the novenas, before it is too late for him and all others like him.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. IndianCowboy - July 2, 2006

he would do better to apply science to his own political philosophy, the moron.

How can you call yourself a biologist and an evolutionist when you proceed to ignore everything that both tell you about human nature?

*smack*

2. Sophist - July 3, 2006

God alone knows what that good science will look like. The clones from The Island? The replicants from Bladerunner?

Yes, because it’s a short hop from atheism to cannibalism, necrophilia and driving a car that runs on kitten tears and the crushed dreams of paralyzed orphans.

The moment a scientist stops believing in G-d they turn into Stalin McHitler and start churning out armies of clones to to their unholy bidding.

But seriously, you have completely misconstrued the argument being made in that post. It is not that science is required to disprove the existance of G-d, it is that a good scientist ought not shy away from or avoid realms of science whose implications might conflict with religious thought or belief.

This quote, in particular, is relevant:

The short term political expediency of making theists comfortable with evolution by hiding its implications undermines what should be a greater, more substantive goal of reconciling people’s beliefs with reality.

3. demolition65 - July 3, 2006

Horsefeathers. He IS advocating for a lead to godlessness, and science without objective truth does lead to, as you so aptly put it, Stalin McHitler. We’ve already seen the evidence.

4. Sophist - July 4, 2006

…and science without objective truth does lead to, as you so aptly put it, Stalin McHitler.

No. Science doesn’t lead you anywhere, not any more than a car drives you. It’s a tool, nothing more.

Horsefeathers. He IS advocating for a lead to godlessness…

Uh, no, not the way you claimed:

This does not mean that scientists can’t be religious. We can encompass irrational beliefs without regret and without obligation[…]So, a scientist should have no problem demanding one standard of logic and evidence in the lab, and dropping that demand when they go to church on Sunday.
[…]
Many Christians and Muslims are going to squirm uncomfortably at that, and there will be howls of protest that science must not lead people towards godlessness…but I say it’s about time.

The point is that if science does lead some people towards godlessness, we shouldn’t try to “fix” science to prevent that outcome. He is not saying that we should alter science to promote godlessness.

5. demolition65 - July 4, 2006

. . .but I say it’s about time.

What article are you reading?

6. Sophist - July 4, 2006

What article are you reading?

This one:

Many Christians and Muslims are going to squirm uncomfortably at that, and there will be howls of protest that science must not lead people towards godlessness…but I say it’s about time.

The “it’s about time” is in refernce to the “squirm uncomfortably” portion of the sentence, not the “lead people towards godlessness” portion, like so:

Many Christians and Muslims are going to squirm uncomfortably at that[…]but I say it’s about time.

What he saying is that it’s about time that believers recognize the tension between science and religion instead of pretending it’s not there. It could have been expressed better though.

7. demolition65 - July 4, 2006

What he saying is that it’s about time that believers recognize the tension between science and religion instead of pretending it’s not there.

I’m not convinced, given his barking-mad insistence that all Christianity is evil.

8. Sophist - July 5, 2006

I’m not convinced, given his barking-mad insistence that all Christianity is evil.

Where does he say that?

9. demolition65 - July 6, 2006

You cannot be serious. Go to his absurd blog and check out the catgories skepticism and godlessness, just for starters. Examples abound.

10. Sophist - July 6, 2006

You cannot be serious.

I am. I don’t keep track of every blog on the internet. It’s a failing, to be sure.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: