Here's an L.A. Times essay arguing that the confrontational attitude towards religion taken by Dawkins, Dennett et alia -- and their denunciation as wimps of scientists and science educators who don't follow their hard line -- actually hurts the cause of science education and scientific literacy. Excerpt:
In this context, the New Atheists have chosen their course: confrontation. And groups like the NCSE have chosen the opposite route: Work with all who support the teaching of evolution regardless of their beliefs, and attempt to sway those who are uncertain but perhaps convincible.Despite the resultant bitterness, however, there is at least one figure both sides respect -- the man who started it all: Charles Darwin. What would he have done in this situation?
It turns out that late in life, when an atheist author asked permission to dedicate a book to Darwin, the great scientist wrote back his apologies and declined. For as Darwin put it, "Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science."
Darwin and Dawkins differ by much more than a few letters, then -- something the New Atheists ought to deeply consider.
The loudest voices get the most attention, of course, but one of the great things about my summer Templeton fellowship was getting to meet and spend time with leading scientists who are religious believers, and who -- alas for Dawkins! -- feel no compulsion to self-hatred. It was also a pleasure to hear John Gray, the English skeptic and philosopher who pointed out that in China today, quite a few scientists, doctors and other educated professionals are going to Bible studies and prayer meetings. Said Gray to us, "These are not illiterate fools."
There's a lot more fruitful exchanges going on in the conversation between science and religion than the fundamentalists of either side would have us think.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Just for the uninitiated ...
The James Balfour that Martin Snigg refers to is Arthur Balfour, one-time British prime minister. He was also president of the Society for Psychical Research, a Victorian "think-tank" dedicated to the study of psychic and paranormal phenomena.
Arthur James Balfour quite right Jamie thanks. As for his research it probably came to a . . . dead end.
Heh.
Quote was right on the money don't you think?
Was this Balfour the Prime Minister of England or of TL;DRistan? So far in this thread nobody has just cut-n-pasted huge tracts from Dawkins or Myers, instead making on-point responses to the original post.
Also:
I found it most interesting that in the movie "Expelled", a hard-core darwin evolutionist finally admitted that there had to be some kind of design involved in human creation et al. Except he thought it came from aliens in outer space
Apparently you didn't, because not only do you not remember the person's name, but you also don't even remember the event properly.
It is important to note science developed only within a Christian civilization. A civilization that built the university system within the casting out of the reasoning faculties upon the canvas of creation was by faith assured a good return. Why?
Try this for size-
Despite its anti-paganist element (which Nietzsche so despised) popular Christianity became infused with and dominated by conflict-generating elements of tribal and nature deity paganism (which Nietzsche also didn't like). The best tools of pagan rationalism had to be recovered to counter the latter.
Islam reconciled its pagan and anti-pagan elements pretty rapidly and stifled its rationalists quickly. Due to the divisions and diversity of Europe Christianity took longer to negotiate or force a similar compromise. It then found itself stuck with a revived and dispersed rationalist tradition, and despite serious effort was unable to squelch it.
Greek philosophy and primitive empirical inquiry had no effect on Greek religion and vice versa.
Socrates might not agree with that interpretation.
The unmoved mover
And wheeeeeee.... Alice tumbles down the rabbit hole.
Am I the only one who noticed that the article's writers soft-pedaled Myers' inexcusable act of desecration? They mentioned "fanatical Catholics" without noting that Myers had used far more than "abrasive language" to deliberately provoke a reaction.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.