I predict this may ruffle a few feathers. I don’t have time to comment myself, but I’m sure PZ, Jason and other can more than adequately weigh in. Avery Cardinal Dulles writes in the theo-con journal First Things:
Science, however, performs a disservice when it claims to be the only valid form of knowledge, displacing the aesthetic, the interpersonal, the philosophical, and the religious.
The recent outburst of atheistic scientism is an ominous sign. If unchecked, this arrogance could lead to a resumption of the senseless warfare that raged in the nineteenth century, thus undermining the harmony of different levels of knowledge that has been foundational to our Western civilization. By contrast, the kind of dialogue between evolutionary science and theology proposed by John Paul II can overcome the alienation and lead to authentic progress both for science and for religion.
- Log in to post comments
And I supposed the good cardinal is doing his utmost to convey JP2's ideas about evolution to all his parishoners, and has joined an ecumenical movement to get all Christian denominations behind evolutionary science.
How the hell did science at all involve senseless 19th century warfare? How will it rekindle it? What is he talking about?
DragonScholar,
Maybe he means they're going to start killing us if we get too uppity and don't stay in the closet.
Religidiots are funny like that.
Why would they need to comment? It's pure crap, it's just as worthwhile commenting on people saying Darwin lead to Hitler. As we say in Physics, it's not even wrong.
The "aesthetic, the interpersonal, the philosophical, and the religious" are not all "forms of knowledge," as Dulles claims. What is aesthetic is often indicative of a subtle inner structure, as in the fractal depth of a Pollock painting, so aesthetic judgements can be a kind of knowledge. "Interpersonal" is such a broad term that it could mean anything. Philosophy, done right, is science. Religion, on the other hand, is bad philosophy mixed with pseudoscience (if it were good it would be philosophy and science). It's not a way of knowing, but a way of unknowing.
"Different levels of knowledge"?
Rational
Moronic
Imbecilic
Idiotic
Magical
Religious
Like that, m'kay?
In the "Better late than never category," Dulles notes,
Following in the footsteps of the Second Vatican Council, John Paul II at the beginning of his pontificate established a commission to review and correct the condemnation of Galileo at his trial of 1633.
outburst of atheistic scientism
That would be all those neat images coming back from the Cassini spacecraft, right? No, my mistake. That's atheistic science.
That is one ugly label somebody made up. Kind of makes me want to give up atheism and my love of science, just to avoid being tagged with it.
Interesting how it's scientism when they perceive scientists to be trespassing on their turf, but not when they try to legitimise their faith claims by claiming they are 'scientifically' proven.
Before he should comment on the past Dulles should maybe (gasp) study the science of history. He'd might notice that just about every war was started because of ideology not because someone cooked up a new hypothesis.
I think he needn't worry. All those other forms of konwledge can look after themselves pretty well... they're not going to roll over quietly just because Daniel Dennett gives an eloquent speech at the local university.
Well, as a "religidiot" I think the message is actually pretty clear. The linking of science to atheism will cause people to reject science on religious/moral grounds.
It comes down to whether or not atheists want to educate religious believers in science, or just make them not religious believers anymore.
And just in time, the September issue of Geotimes cover story is "Strange Bedfellows? Science and Faith" (Well, its main focus is evangelicals and scientists joining to address climate change).
Dulles writes:
Happily, religion has never been the source of senseless warfare in previous centuries.
Nobody in Particular: "The linking of science to atheism will cause people to reject science on religious/moral grounds."
Yeah, yeah, so we keep hearing. It seems to me it's not true in many cases. In those where it is, it's because so many theists link atheism to amorality. Why should atheists acquiesce and even cooperate in the continuation of this slander? I note in passing that you're happy to perpetuate (probably unthinkingly) this falsehood with your linking of "religious" and "moral," as if they are the same or almost the same.
People like yourself keep talking about the linking of atheism and science as if it's purely a tactical move. I, for one, see it as the simple and rather obvious truth. When I read comments like yours, I hear someone saying I should conceal or lie about some of my fundamental beliefs and values. Why am I obliged to do so anymore than you?
As scientific exploration continues, it will continue to infringe upon widely held and deeply cherished religious beliefs. A major current example is the insights of neuroscience (and arguably, evolutionary psychology) into the origins of both ethics and religion. How are we to keep the religious from noticing? And why should we?
The Cardinal is mistaken from the outset, since there is no such things as "atheistic science," but just science, which is non-theistic.
Unhappily for the Cardinal, scientists who are atheists express their opinions on matters outside science, just as he chooses to express his opinion on matters outside religious faith.
Call me a dreamer, but I think people are intelligent enough to understand the limitations of both his self and the scientists in question, as they learn to form their own opinions, and take neither parties as direct pipelines to The Truth.
There was a time when the Church could just make anyone, including scientists, shut up. Alas, for the Cardinal, those days are done.