science and religion
gregladen | April 3, 2012We are at war. I do not refer to the war in Afghanastan (though that too) but rather to the war between the religious right, Republicans, the 1% and various anti-science forces on one hand and everybody else on the other. Indeed, it is standard political wisdom that Fundamentalist Christians and Republicans constitute an overlapping (and where not overlapping, highly cooperative) group standing in opposition to science.
Right?
Well, actually, no. New research released literally moments ago suggests that things are a bit more complicated than this. It turns out that generally speaking,…
ddobbs | March 19, 2009"Faith" is a fine invention
For gentlemen who see --
But microscopes are prudent
In an emergency.
Emily Dickinson, poet (1830-1886)
via A Word a Day, 3/17/09
cmooney | February 18, 2009I've been thrilled at the comments I'm getting in response to my posts on Nicholaus Copernicus. See for example here. So I've thought of a plan to invite blog readers to join me throughout the next several months as I push through a large number of other texts like De revolutionibus.
For the remainder of this week, the primary reading will be Copernicus. (I still have a ways to go to finish.) Secondary readings will be Owen Gingerich's The Book Nobody Read and Thomas Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution.
After that, here's the schedule I'm working from, and will strive to keep to--with Amazon…
cmooney | February 16, 2009
In my last post I remarked on how "radically strange--and yet strangely modern" I expected the 1543 work that kicked off the "scientific revolution" to be. Now that I've read the first two books of De Revolutionibus, I can say, boy was I right.
This is the first of several posts about my experience of reading Nicholaus Copernicus in the original (er, translation). So first, let me point out the things I found "radically strange" about the work, with the "strangely modern" to come in the next post:
Radically strange: Instructions for how to build an astrolabe. Vast tables of star locations,…
cmooney | February 12, 2009Over at Science Progress, I've been involved in putting together not one but two items timed for Darwin Day.
The first is an op-ed coauthored with my prof here at Princeton, D. Graham Burnett, who teaches Darwin. We argue for historical nuance, which leads one to reject the idea that Darwin should be considered an icon of conflict between science and religion. In fact, we call that idea "a hackneyed story, lacking in historical nuance and ultimately running counter to the project of drawing helpful lessons from the life of one of history's greatest scientists." A brief excerpt:
...Science-…
cmooney | February 9, 2009So...it is not exactly easy to find history of science classics at your average--or even your well above average--bookstore.
The class I'm officially taking here at Princeton, History 293, focuses heavily on a course packet and so doesn't have many officially assigned books. It does have a few; they are Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle and Origin of Species--which I already own and have read, although right now they're somewhere in the middle of the country in transit--and Michael Adas's Machines As the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance (Cornell Studies in…
cmooney | January 30, 2009Maybe teenage geeks and fantasy-loving atheists have a shared faith after all? As Dylan Otto Krider reports over at the Colorado Daily, a University of Colorado postgraduate named Theo Zijderveld is making a serious argument to this effect:
For the paper, Zijderveld applied the French sociologist Danil Hervieu-Lger's four dimensions required to be considered a religion: community, ethics, culture and emotion.
He believes playing with friends constitutes community, the rules of the game the ethical dimension, the "Warcraft" mythos the culture and the feelings of belonging the emotional…
cmooney | January 29, 2009
So...I have a new home.
Just two days ago now, I arrived in Princeton, New Jersey and occupied a new apartment here, along with the fiance and the puppy. Los Angeles was a blast, and it's somewhere I think everyone ought to try to live--but I wanted to get back to the hoary old east coast.
I also had reason to do so: I'm now a visiting associate at the Center for Collaborative History here. The professor I'll be collaborating with is D. Graham Burnett, a science historian who taught me Darwin at Yale back in 1997. We're working on a history of science project, not surprisingly...and that's…
cmooney | January 28, 2009Here it is:
*/
The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Obama's New Science Policy - Chris Mooney
Colbert Report Full EpisodesColbert Report Tickets
Paul McCartney AppearanceMore Funny Videos
I'll have more to say about the whole experience in my next column....thanks to everyone who wrote in with positive words about the segment.
cmooney | January 27, 2009You can watch it here. Tons of funny stuff in Colbert's segment on science, which starts roughly at 6:15 and runs to roughly 10:45. I was on for about three minutes, and was instructed: "No monkey business. No evolution."
Of course, even though Colbert plays a rightwinger who thinks with his gut rather than his head and doesn't trust book learning, the truth is that his show features a ton of science content and, indeed, is doing vastly more than most other parts of the media to improve the role of science in our culture.
I was thrilled to be on.
cmooney | January 15, 2009I have a new piece on Slate exploring precisely this question. Here's the core of it:
If the war on science is over, we're now entering the postwar phase of reconstruction--the scientific equivalent of nation-building. The Bush science controversies were just one manifestation of a deeper and long-standing gulf between the science community and the broader American public, one with roots stretching back to our indigenous tradition of anti-intellectualism (as so famously described by historian Richard Hofstadter in his classic work from 1963) and Yankee distrust of expertise and authority. So…
sheril | July 14, 2008I've been offline for months, having tired of the ridiculous ramblings you flightless hominids occupy yourselves with involving God knows what. However, on that topic, the recent outbursts in and out of the blogosphere have me so perplexed, I'm inclined to give everyone involved a good bite on the nose.
From a bird's eye view, I cannot fathom why humans spend so much time arguing over who's got religion right. Honestly, take it from a highly evolved species [ahem, the conure], all of your bemoaning isn't worth peanuts. Believe whatever you'd like, but don't get your feathers ruffled over…
sheril | May 14, 2008A couple months ago, we learned that the Vatican named pollution a new sin and now it seems they like astronomy too...
Funes [Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory] said science, especially astronomy, does not contradict religion... The Bible "is not a science book," Funes said, adding that he believes the Big Bang theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.
sheril | March 10, 2008VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of "new" sins such as causing environmental blight.
The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.
Off to NYC, but this one's worth checking out... What will PZ say?
sheril | August 31, 2007Since Monday's foray into the realm of religion, many readers have responded regarding:
I just don't think these [atheist] books provide folks reason to notice they were atheists all along without a shepherd. Wouldn't that liken PZ to Abraham? Or dare I say it, Jesus?
Of course, this was only in jest and PZ knows we thoroughly enjoy his style and wit. But Michelangelo's Creation of Adam in Chris' post yesterday inspired us to recognize another obvious comparison...
It's uncanny. Coincidence? You decide.
cmooney | August 30, 2007
[God: "Go ahead, make my day."]
I have been staying out of the science and religion mess lately--although I think it's already known that while I'm personally non-religious, I agree with Nisbet that going head-on at people's faith probably isn't a very good strategy if you want to defend the teaching of evolution in the USA.
But in any event, what harm can come from a tiny little post? (Grinning fiendishly.)
So here's my contribution: I merely wish to point out a good analysis of polling data over at Pew that strongly supports the broad Nisbet perspective. The gist: The American public doesn…
sheril | July 26, 2007Since posting on religion last week, readers and bloggers alike have hypothesized, proclaimed, and spun words to guess where I fall on matters of faith. Some even took the time to thoughtfully write and I enjoyed reading a few extremely creative suggestions regarding where I may have hinted. As stated previously, the principle reason I do not disclose my personal view is because faith has no place in science. I do, however, concur with one of my favorite characters in fiction, Dr. Ellie Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact.The question Do you believe in God? has a peculiar structure. If I say no…
sheril | July 16, 2007Science Blogs are abuzz since PZ, Rob, James, John, and Skatje Myers have reopened the Pandora's box on matters of Faith. As I've stated before, I feel strongly that Science need not become universally synonymous with Godlessness because that certainly doesn't win any converts. Any breed of fundamentalism (atheism included) usually results in alienating good folks and losing credibility among everyone who thinks or believes differently. Granted, I'm green in the blogosphere, but the topic is one that really gets under my skin because it pits two fundamentally different levels of argument…
cmooney | May 29, 2007FAITH
Several folks have emailed asking why I've yet to write about RELIGION. Simply put, what I believe is that faith has no place in science. Will someone please stand up and explain the circular argument, the rhetoric, the tomfoolery and fiddlesticks that is the age old debate on how these two worlds converge? Convince me, and I'm ready and waiting at my laptop to jump in.
I admit I'm no expert here. Although I studied religion as a Classics major, my perspectives are predominantly influenced by an inundation of our own cultural norms, societal movements, American education, and the…
cmooney | March 12, 2007According to the Secular Coalition of America, Pete Stark (D-Ca) doesn't believe in God. I am quite certain he's not the only such individual in Congress, but the fact that even in this day and age, such a revelation is tantamount to coming "out of the closet" is really staggering....