Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square
Human Events ^ | September 15, 2000 | Nancy Pearcey

Posted on 10/28/2006 3:22:14 PM PDT by betty boop

Moral conservatives were shocked to read a thinly veiled defense of infanticide in the New York Times a few years ago by MIT [now of Harvard] professor Steven Pinker. But they would be even more disturbed if they saw Pinker’s justification for his views in a book that appeared about the same time.

In How the Mind Works, Pinker argues that the fundamental premise of ethics has been disproved by science. “Ethical theory,” he writes, “requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused.” Yet, “the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events.”

In other words, moral reasoning assumes the existence of things that science tells us are unreal. Pinker tries to retain some validity for ethics nonetheless by offering a “double truth” theory: “A human being,” he says, “is simultaneously a machine and a sentient agent, depending on the purposes of the discussion.”

It’s astonishing that anyone, especially an MIT professor, would be capable of sustaining two such contradictory ideas. But in fact, it is quite common, says Phillip Johnson in The Wedge of Truth. Since the Enlightenment, knowledge has split into two separate and often contradictory spheres: “facts” (science) versus “values” (ethics, religion, the humanities).

The trouble with this division is that eventually one side comes to dominate. This is the key to understanding why America is embroiled in a culture clash today, Johnson argues — and why moral and religious conservatives are losing. The direction in intellectual history since the Enlightenment has been to grant science the authority to pronounce what is real, true, objective, and rational, while relegating ethics and religion to the realm of subjective opinion and nonrational experience.

Once this definition of knowledge is conceded, then any position that appears to be backed by science will ultimately triumph in the public square over any position that appears based on ethics or religion. The details of the particular debate do not matter. For, in principle, we do not enact into public policy and we do not teach in the public schools views based private opinion or tribal prejudice.

Johnson gives a rich description of how the fact/value dichotomy operates. Its origin is generally traced to Descartes, who proposed a sharp dualism between matter and mind. It was not long before the realm of matter came to be seen as more certain, more objective, than the realm of mind. The subject matter of physics is indeed much simpler than metaphysics, and hence yields far wider agreement. This was mistakenly taken to mean that physics is objective while metaphysics is subjective. The result was the rise of scientism and positivism — philosophies that accord naturalistic science a monopoly on knowledge and consign all else to mere private belief and fantasy.

Today, Johnson writes, “the dominance of the scientific naturalist definition of knowledge eventually ensures that no independent source of knowledge will be recognized.”

Darwin, Buddha, Jesus, Fairies
Yet, depending on how scientists judge the public’s mood, they are more or less blunt about this epistemological imperialism. When feeling secure in their role as the cultural priesthood, they insist that naturalistic science has completely discredited the claims of religion. Tufts philosopher Daniel Dennett, in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, says Darwinian evolution is “a universal acid” that dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs. He suggests that traditional churches be relegated to “cultural zoos” for the amusement of onlookers.

I witnessed the same attitude at a conference last April at Baylor University: Nobel prize-winner Steven Weinberg lumped together all spiritual teachings, whether of Buddha or Jesus, as talk about “fairies.” A few months earlier he had told the Freedom From Religion Association, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that.” If science helps bring about the end of religion, he concluded, “it would be the most important contribution science could make.”

Using a sports metaphor, Johnson calls these outspoken scientists “the offensive platoon,” brought out as needed to “invok[e] the authority of science to silence any theistic protest.” At other times, however, when the public shows signs of restlessness at this imposition of naturalistic philosophy under the guise of science, “the defensive platoon takes the field. That is when we read spin-doctored reassurances that many scientists are religious (in some sense) . . . and that science and religion are separate realms which should never be mixed.”

But separate-but-equal in principle invariably means unequal in practice. For example, a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) says, “whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.” But a survey of NAS members by Larry Witham and Edward Larson in Scientific American found that 90% of scientists don’t believe in a supernatural God. Witham and Larson conclude: “The irony is remarkable: a group of specialists who are nearly all unbelievers — and who believe that science compels such a conclusion — told the public that ‘science is neutral’ on the God question.”

Or perhaps worse than an irony, Johnson comments; it may be a “noble lie” that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people to conceal their own nihilism.

Keep the Public In the Dark
Similarly, Harvard’s Stephen J. Gould proposes a peacemaking formula he calls NOMA (“non-overlapping magisteria”), granting science and religion each its own distinct authority. This sounds fair enough — but it all depends on where one draws the line. Consider Gould’s assessment of the 1996 statement by John Paul II, in which the pope tentatively supported evolution while emphatically rejecting any theories that “consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter.”

How did Gould treat this affirmation of the reality of the spiritual realm? He condescendingly granted that such a quaint notion might have some “metaphorical value,” but added that he privately suspected it to be “no more than a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature.”

In other words, Gould reduced religion to mere emotion at best — at worst, to the sin of speciesism. This was a bit much even for John Haught of Georgetown University, himself an ardent evolutionist: He complained that Gould “never concedes the slightest cognitive status to religion” — that for Gould religion merely “paints a coat of ‘value’ over the otherwise valueless ‘facts’ described by science.”

Precisely. For the modern Darwinist, Johnson explains, the only role left for the theologian “is to put a theistic spin on the story provided by materialism.” Theology does not provide an independent source of knowledge; all it can do is “borrow knowledge to put a subjective interpretation on it.”

Clearly, the function of the defensive platoon is merely to keep religious folk content with their subordinate status. Darwinists understand that it is sometimes more effective not to press the logic of the fact/value split to its unpalatable conclusions too adamantly, lest the public catch on and raise a protest. Instead of arguing that religion is false, by relegating it to the “value” realm, they keep the question of true and false off the table altogether. As Johnson says, religion is consigned “to the private sphere, where illusory beliefs are acceptable ‘if they work for you.’”

Thus the fact/value split “allows the metaphysical naturalists to mollify the potentially troublesome religious people by assuring them that science does not rule out ‘religious belief’ (so long as it does not pretend to be knowledge).”

Once this division is accepted in principle however, Johnson warns, the philosophical naturalists have won. “Whenever the ‘separate realms’ logic surfaces, you can be sure that the wording implies that there is a ruling realm (founded on reality) and a subordinate realm (founded on illusions which must be retained for the time being).” Hence, “the formula allows the ruling realm to expand its territory at will.”

Epistemological Imperialism
The expansion of the “fact” realm into theology can be traced in the work of scientists such as Harvard’s E.O. Wilson, who seeks to explain religion itself as a product of evolution. Religion is merely an idea that appears in the human mind when the nervous system has evolved to a certain level of complexity.

In Consilience, Wilson says religion evolved because belief in God gave early humans an edge in the struggle for survival. Today, he says, we must abandon traditional religions and develop a new unifying myth based squarely on evolution — a religion that deifies the process itself, where no teaching, no doctrine, is true in any final sense because all ideas evolve over time.

A similar expansion can be traced in ethics, where sociobiology and evolutionary psychology now presume to answer moral questions. In the notorious New York Times article mentioned above, Pinker argues that since infanticide is widespread in human cultures, it must be a product of evolution. As he puts it, the “emotional circuitry of mothers has evolved” to include a “capacity for neonaticide.” It is simply part of our “biological design.”

Accept this logic, Johnson warns, and you will be pressed to the conclusion that killing off babies is not a moral horror but a morally neutral act, a genetically encoded evolutionary adaptation, like wings or claws.

Pinker does not draw this conclusion — yet. But when the time seems ripe to overthrow the traditional moral view, Johnson predicts, doctrinaire naturalists “will complete the logic by observing that the moral sphere is as empty as the religious realm,” and therefore has no power to stand against the conclusions of “science.”

Shortly after Johnson finished his book, his forewarnings were confirmed by the appearance of a book titled The Natural History of Rape, which argued that, biologically speaking, rape is not a pathology; instead, it is an evolutionary strategy for maximizing reproductive success: In other words, if candy and flowers don’t do the trick, some men may resort to coercion to fulfill the reproductive imperative. The book calls rape “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” akin to “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.”

The book roused sharp controversy, but as one of the authors, Randy Thornhill, said on National Public Radio, the logic is inescapable: Since evolution is true, it must be true, he said, that “every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That’s not a debatable matter.” Every behavior that exists today must confer some evolutionary advantage; otherwise, it would not have been preserved by natural selection.

The “fact” realm has even expanded into the philosophy of mind, where consistent Darwinists tell us there is no single, central “self,” residing somehow within the body, that makes decisions, holds opinions, loves and hates. Instead, in the currently popular “computational” theory, the mind is a set of computers that solve specific problems forwarded by the senses. The notion of a unified self is an illusion, Pinker says — an illusion selected by evolution only because our body needs to be able to go one direction at a time.

Of course, computers operate without consciousness, so the question arises why we are conscious beings. Some neuroscientists conclude that we aren’t — that consciousness too is an illusion. Philosopher Paul Churchland says mental states do not exist, and suggests that we replace language about beliefs and desires with statements about the nervous system’s physical mechanisms — the activation of neurons and so on.

Piling example upon example, Johnson illustrates the epistemological imperialism of the “fact” sphere. This explains why moral and religious conservatives seem to have little effect in the public square: Their message is filtered through a fact/value grid that reduces it to an expression of mere emotional attachment and tribal prejudice. To turn the tide of the culture war, conservatives must challenge this definition of knowledge, and make the case that religion and morality are genuine sources of knowledge. We must “assert the existence of such a cognitive territory,” Johnson writes, “and be prepared to defend it. ” [Emphasis added.]

Of course, others have offered philosophical arguments to undercut the fact/value dichotomy, notably Michael Polanyi and Leo Strauss. What makes Johnson’s approach unique is that he takes the battle into science itself. He proposes that Darwinian evolution itself can and should be critiqued, since it functions as the crucial scientific support for philosophical naturalism. For if nature alone can produce everything that exists, then we must accept the reductionist conclusions described above. If, to take the last example, the mind is a product of material processes at its origin, then we must concede that it consists of nothing more than material processes — that our thoughts are reducible to the firing of neurons.

How Information Changes Everything
In science itself, the cutting-edge issue is information, Johnson says. Any text, whether a book or the DNA code, requires a complex, nonrepeating arrangement of letters. Can this kind of order be produced by chance or law? The answer, he argues, is no. Chance produces randomness, while physical law produces simple, repetitive order (like using a macro on your computer to print a phrase over and over). The only cause of complex, nonrepeating, specified order is an intelligent agent. [Emphasis added.]

Ordinary laboratory research implicitly assumes the reality of intelligent design, Johnson notes. Biologists talk of “molecular machines” and evaluate their “engineering design.” They conduct experiments that are described as “reverse engineering” to determine what functions biological structures perform. They talk about “libraries” of genetic information stored in DNA, and about how RNA “translates” the four-letter language of the nucleotides into the 20-letter language of proteins.

All this implies that information is real — and information in turn implies the existence of a mind, a personal agent, capable of intention and choice. Thus purposes and ends [e.g., formal and final causes, to use the Aristotelian language] are real and objective, and the “value” realm is restored to the status of genuine knowledge.

Johnson only hints at what this would imply for a revival of traditional theology and ethics. But he suggests that it would begin with the many-layered verse in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word,” the Logos — reason, intelligence, information. “These simple words make a fundamental statement that is directly contradictory to the corresponding starting point of scientific materialism,” Johnson writes, and they open the door to a much richer definition of knowledge and of reason itself.

This conclusion is certainly suggestive, though not well developed. Johnson’s greatest accomplishment is to give a deft analysis of the imperialism of the “fact” sphere. Unfortunately, he barely touches on the opposite dynamic — the incursion of the “value” sphere into the “fact” realm — which is well advanced in many fields. It is called postmodernism, and it reduces all knowledge claims to social constructions at best, to power plays at worst. Johnson devotes a chapter to the impact of postmodernism on the humanities, but it is the thinnest chapter in the book, and it is clear that his greatest concern is with the scientific fields where the older Enlightenment rationalism still reigns.

For the rationalist, Johnson is no doubt correct that the only approach that carries weight is a scientific one. Only a demonstration that the scientific data itself has theistic implications bridges the sphere of objective, public, verifiable knowledge. Johnson includes clear and readable discussions of standard anti-Darwinian arguments. (There has long been skepticism within the scientific community about the enormous extrapolation from minor variations within living things to explain the origin of living things.) He also gives a deliciously witty account of the Kansas controversy.

The strength of the book, however, is to show the wide-ranging implications of intelligent design theory in other fields, and to trace its relevance for nonscientists — indeed, for all who are concerned about preserving a free and humane society.

Copyright 2000. Human Events. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. File Date: 10.23.00

* * * * * * *

This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use. A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be appreciated.

[URL -- http://www.arn.org/ with gratitude.]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: darwinism; intelligentdesign; moralabsolutes; nancypearcey; phillipjohnson; religionisobsolete; stevenpinker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-349 next last
Over the past several days, pointed claims have been raised by certain present and recently departed Freepers that FreeRepublic has adopted an “anti-science” animus and attitude in recent times. Personally speaking, the claim strikes me as utterly baseless.

Though I do not speak in any official capacity for FR, as a member of this forum for nearly nine years, I have to say FR isn’t “anti-science” at all; it’s “anti abuse of science” — that is, to say, any use of science dedicated to political and social change purposes. The scientific method itself allows no scope for such proclivities/activities.

Personally, I strongly object to this "disenchanted evo" mischaracterization. And Nancy Pearcey’s article well documents the reasons why — in logic and reason — I feel justified in objecting to the baseless claim that FR is "anti-science."

In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage. That is to say, trespassing on philosophy and theology: It simply has no warrant there. And perhaps the time has come when certain “scientists” need to be reminded of that.

FWIW.

1 posted on 10/28/2006 3:22:19 PM PDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron; .30Carbine; FreedomProtector; cornelis; Quix; TXnMA; ...

FYI and welcome to the party, should you choose to show up.


2 posted on 10/28/2006 3:27:24 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; metmom

FYI - will read it later tonight. Looks interesting.


3 posted on 10/28/2006 3:37:01 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

FYI, just in case you might find this interesting....


4 posted on 10/28/2006 3:39:57 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I think you have to distinguish between real science, and scientism.

Darwinism is a parody of science, which tends to be a kind of secular religion.

Science is a good deal more open minded and willing to adjust to the realities if a hypothesis proves to be wrong. Darwinists simply cannot get themselves to agree that they possibly could be wrong. Their position is that Darwinism is true, scientific, factual, period, end of conversation. If you disagree, they will call in the activist judges to shut your mouth, because you are deemed unscientific and therefore not worthy to be heard.

I was a math and physics major at Harvard before I changed fields, and I have studied the history of science and philosophy for most of my lifetime. Descartes's mind-body problem is certainly one source of the difficulty. But it goes back even further to John of Ockham's nominalism. This is the illusion that if you can't see and touch something, it's not real. Therefore there is no such thing as a tree, or a maple, or an oak. There are only individual trees, maples, and oaks. The individual is more real than the universal. But paradoxically we can only think in universals.

That soon leads to theories like those mentioned: that we have no free will, no real consciousness, no real intelligence, that all our ideals are really illusions, and so forth. But as Samuel Johnson said, while kicking a stone, "Thus do I refute Berkeley." Anyone with even a dash of sense knows that he has free will, intelligence, choice. It takes a brainwashing education to make people think otherwise, and of course that's why Darwinists want to impose brainwashing educations in the public schools, with no opportunity to discuss whether they are actually real or scientific.

History tells the same story. Science and technology grew up in the west to unprecedented heights BECAUSE of Christianity, not in spite of it, as the pseudoscientists would have people believe. Philosophy, or the love of knowledge, thrived under Christianity long after it died in Greece, and philosophy died in the West precisely because Christianity weakened in intellectual circles.


5 posted on 10/28/2006 3:40:05 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thanks for the ping.

That article will take a little time to read.

Back to you later

Thanks again
6 posted on 10/28/2006 3:45:49 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
“Ethical theory,” he writes, “requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused.” Yet, “the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events.”

Such materialistc determinism is the cornerstone of Marxism.

7 posted on 10/28/2006 3:45:54 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Thank you for your magnificent essay/post, Cicero -- every last word of which is "right on the money," IMHO.

From my point of view, there is exactly not a single word you wrote that I can disagree with.

Certainly I appreciate the distinction you make between science and scientism -- the latter a bastardized, reduced version of human reason and insight.

Thank you ever so much for your illuminating essay/post!

8 posted on 10/28/2006 3:48:51 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

You're welcome, RunningWolf! Hope to see you again later.


9 posted on 10/28/2006 3:51:04 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

As always, Cicero, your wise comments are worth re-reading. My grandmother always said our troubles started at the turn of the 20th century when so many intellectuals (so-called) rejected God.

Personally, I think of the afterlife as analogous to the profit motive - - most humans are pretty selfish and the only reason they behave themselves is because they expect to have to answer for it eventually.


10 posted on 10/28/2006 3:54:46 PM PDT by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Such materialistc determinism is the cornerstone of Marxism.

So very glad you noticed that, too, Tailgunner Joe.

Of course, an allegation like that seems to make many of our neo-Darwinist friends squirm.... But it seems to me, if "the shoe fits, wear it."

Thanks for so much for writing, Tailgunner Joe!

11 posted on 10/28/2006 3:56:37 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Cicero
Thanks, betty boop for posting this. This message is needed, loud and clear.

Cicero is right. The "isms" try to simplify our world by amputating what doesn't fit, all for the sake of power.

12 posted on 10/28/2006 3:58:44 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Science by it's very nature is amoral.

In science anything that is possible is permissible.

Science not tempered by morality is a very dangerous place..


13 posted on 10/28/2006 3:58:55 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (The Internet is the samizdat of liberty..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TASMANIANRED

Who said, "Without God, everything is permissible."


14 posted on 10/28/2006 4:00:35 PM PDT by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
[ Over the past several days, pointed claims have been raised by certain present and recently departed Freepers that FreeRepublic has adopted an “anti-science” animus and attitude in recent times. Personally speaking, the claim strikes me as utterly baseless. ]

Free Republic in my experience is an expedition of herding cats.. Mothers and even Mothers Apple Pie could be debated from many different angles.. To say there is an anti science animus on FR could easily be true... and also UNtrue at the same time.. Depends on which thread you are reading at the time and the time you are reading it..

Its that way with "Cats"... Freepers are just "scratching" for some truth.. and howling for "red meat".. What amazes me is that a conversation about "the Observer".. goes wanting.. Many think their observation post is the best.. and compared to others it might be, but to yet others it could "suck"(the observation post)... Cats are not very humble creatures..

Nevertheless, I like Cats...

15 posted on 10/28/2006 4:06:19 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Whether it is or isn't is not relevant to this particular piece.

What we have is a reference to a claim that quantum mechanics doesn't happen.

16 posted on 10/28/2006 4:07:00 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

"...Moral conservatives"

...as opposed to all those immoral conservatives...


17 posted on 10/28/2006 4:07:26 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins

I don't know the author but he was correct.


18 posted on 10/28/2006 4:07:51 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (The Internet is the samizdat of liberty..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The marxist left has always falsely claimed that their anti-religious viewpoint is rooted in "science." Their "scientists" push marxist "global warming" doomsday hysteria and other nonsense and are supposed to be just as unquestionable as Michael J. Fox's support for "scientific" experimentation on human beings.


19 posted on 10/28/2006 4:12:39 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TASMANIANRED

"Without God, everything is permitted." -- Dostoevsky


20 posted on 10/28/2006 4:17:53 PM PDT by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
In other words, moral reasoning assumes the existence of things that science tells us are unreal.

I'm going to like this article, thanks for posting it.

21 posted on 10/28/2006 4:18:14 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TASMANIANRED
Science by it's very nature is amoral.

I suppose you could see it that way. I myself am put off with this altar status of amorality and content neutrality bit floating around nowadays. They push it in the courts, you know. I don't trust it, no, not at all.

To put it straight, there is no science without thought. We do science. We think it. No thought, no science. Remember your old Latin, scientia. It means knowledge. In a real way, science is the scientia of the human person. And isn't the human person a moral being? When knowledge is thought to be amoral, I think there is a serious misunderstanding. It begins to bifurcate or life, to split it. And then we become alienated from the world we know we loved.

This problem is related to the fact-value distinction that is raised in the article (not to mention the fact-value-truth distinction).

So what do you mean then, by saying it is amoral? It sounds as if science is a Mr. or Mrs. who is exempt.

22 posted on 10/28/2006 4:22:15 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

The three great nineteenth century exponents of what was to become the Hermeneutics of Suspicion were Darwin, Marx, and Freud.

All of them had some interesting things to say, even Marx. But they all thought that everything could be explained by their "scientific" systems, and they were wrong about that.

Marx has been discredited among sensible people, but he is still immensely influential in academia. Freud also has been generally discredited. Darwin is still holding on by his fingernails, largely with the strategic help of activist judges, who remember the famous Scopes trial and think they are manning the barriers against ignorance and superstition.

Not very democratic. Darwinists have a natural tendency to believe that they belong to a superior race of beings, higher up the evolutionary scale than the rest of us. Freudians, too. Anyone who questioned their theories was "hostile." Therefore, like good Marxists or Freudians, Darwinists think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to think, and more especially how to brainwash our children.


23 posted on 10/28/2006 4:28:04 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

Yes, you are right. "Science" means knowledge, and only took on a more particular meaning, previously denoted by the term "natural philosophy," in the late Renaissance.

Pope Benedict has been pointing out the dangers of splitting rational thought from religion. Ultimately, it is theology and philosophy that lay the groundwork for science, and when scientists casually dismiss this ancient, hard-won knowledge, they are cutting away the very foundations of their work.


24 posted on 10/28/2006 4:30:42 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
There are prominent evolutionists (biologists or other scientists who accept evolution) who are Christian. You do not have to choose between evolution and belief, contrary to militant atheists such as Dawkins or Dennett, and also contrary to creationists or ID theory people. Here are three interesting books by leading scientists, who are each Christian and also accept evolution:
25 posted on 10/28/2006 4:38:42 PM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
"Science by its very nature is amoral."

"Amoral" in this sense refers to value-free situations, making it a synonym of "nonmoral" (neither moral nor immoral).

For example, physics would be an amoral discipline, neither moral nor immoral in itself. However, isn't there an ethical code attached to the practice of each discipline? And when this ethical code is breached, isn't the science therein in danger of becoming "perverted" science?

26 posted on 10/28/2006 4:43:13 PM PDT by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Nevertheless, philosophy should encompass science and religion, both at the same time. This can be done, or a move can be made in that direction if we realize that philosophy itself has been a process in evolution. There is a Cartesian dualism of some kind, at least that of subjective and objective, or private and public. Science deals with public matters and religion with private to some degree. A cause is something that if present will have the same result every time--the basis of science. Morality is the power to choose, and ethics has come to mean making legal choices where the law itself is bifurcating partially from logic as the ethics of the community mature. These distinctions were not always present but are being evolved morally--by us.


27 posted on 10/28/2006 4:44:45 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cornelis; Cicero; Alamo-Girl
Cicero is right. The "isms" try to simplify our world by amputating what doesn't fit, all for the sake of power.

Yes, Cicero is right. Absolutely right. And for the exact reasons you cite.

May God ever help his struggling children.

Thank you ever so much for your reply, dear cornelis!

28 posted on 10/28/2006 4:46:21 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; betty boop
Ultimately, it is theology and philosophy that lay the groundwork for science

I agree. It is a way of thinking that dictates what science is.

This means that even though a particular science restricts itself to particular objects (as betty boop says, "science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical"), scientific thinking is not neutral with respect to the very position it takes to dictate its method and object.

29 posted on 10/28/2006 4:46:55 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
To say there is an anti science animus on FR could easily be true... and also UNtrue at the same time.. Depends on which thread you are reading at the time and the time you are reading it..

So my dearest friend hosepipe, when did you decide to be given over to the proposition of "moral equivalency" in arguments that purport to deal with essential Truth?

Honestly, dear friend, you have perplexed me greatly in recent times.... I just don't know where you're coming from. Please clear up this mystery?

30 posted on 10/28/2006 4:51:00 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Nancy Pearcey's article well documents the reasons why — in logic and reason — I feel justified in objecting to the baseless claim that FR is "anti-science."
That is to say, trespassing on philosophy and theology: It [science] simply has no warrant there ---

Nice to see you on 'my' side of this issue Betty..

Our Constitution is based on an unscientific philosophy of human ideas & principles, -- principles that most of us can agree are 'natural laws'.

At one point Nancy noted:

" --- The expansion of the "fact" realm into theology can be traced in the work of scientists such as Harvard's E.O. Wilson, who seeks to explain religion itself as a product of evolution.
Religion is merely an idea that appears in the human mind when the nervous system has evolved to a certain level of complexity.
In Consilience, Wilson says religion evolved because belief in God gave early humans an edge in the struggle for survival. --"

I have no doubt that Wilson is right about the fact that about our beliefs in a 'Golden Rule' gave us an "edge in survival" ..

-- But to claim that these beliefs are "merely an idea" is belied by his own reasoning. -- Political freedom is a necessary precursor to scientific freedom - to my way of thinking.

Without the golden rules of religions, our freedom to pursue science could never have grown past those of pagan Greek & Rome.

31 posted on 10/28/2006 4:51:30 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"...Moral conservatives" ...as opposed to all those immoral conservatives...

And so your point, gcruse, would be...????

32 posted on 10/28/2006 4:52:21 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins
I understand the safe verson of using "amoral." But there's a lot of mileage got from that. Recently Lynne Cheney pressed Wolf Blitzer on the terrorist tapes CNN has showed. His response? Just the facts, ma'am. "This is reporting the news. Which is what we do, we are not partisan."

Some of us are wisening up here. The facts are a liars best defense. Not to get up in a snit, but why point out the amorality of science? Is it an excuse? To me it sounds like license.

33 posted on 10/28/2006 4:52:37 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; cornelis

Another great read, Cicero. Right on the money. Please keep up your good work.


34 posted on 10/28/2006 4:54:14 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

Thank you so very much for the cites, megatherium! You have my undying gratitude.


35 posted on 10/28/2006 4:55:48 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins

It would be better, thinking of contemporary usage, to say non-moral rather than amoral in this case. Amoral has other baggage, while non-moral is baggage-free.


36 posted on 10/28/2006 4:59:19 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Without the golden rules of religions, our freedom to pursue science could never have grown past those of pagan Greek & Rome.

Amen to that, dear tpaine! Though Greece and Rome did provide important initial foundation for the quest that was to follow....

It's so good to see you again!!! It's been a long time, too long....

37 posted on 10/28/2006 4:59:40 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
". . . why point out the amorality of science?"

Maybe TasmanianRed was merely showing us how easy it is for scientists to put their individual philosophy into their work.

The universe is not "pointless" (Steven Weinberg), Earth is not merely "a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark," (Carl Sagan) and human existence isn't "just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents" (Steven Weinberg).

On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for scientific discovery.

38 posted on 10/28/2006 5:06:26 PM PDT by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Don't bother pinging me to your posts. I've given up on dhimmitude.
39 posted on 10/28/2006 5:11:11 PM PDT by jennyp (The ennui of the short-timer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It's so good to see you again!!! It's been a long time, too long....

It's become ~very~ hard [& dangerous] to discuss the philosophy of constitutionalism in some of the forums..

We'll see if it's safe here. -- Thanks for the thread.

40 posted on 10/28/2006 5:14:43 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; betty boop; metmom; RunningWolf; Dr. Eckleburg
Not very democratic. Darwinists have a natural tendency to believe that they belong to a superior race of beings, higher up the evolutionary scale than the rest of us. Freudians, too. Anyone who questioned their theories was "hostile." Therefore, like good Marxists or Freudians, Darwinists think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to think, and more especially how to brainwash our children.

It is written

Pr 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

41 posted on 10/28/2006 5:15:27 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


42 posted on 10/28/2006 5:16:13 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

You think that's hard? Try discussing acutal science that the fundies don't like. You would think that witch burning is back in vouge.


43 posted on 10/28/2006 5:16:35 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Creationism: 5000 years of young earth stupidity, and growing more ignorant daily)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Don't bother pinging me to your posts. I've given up on dhimmitude.

From your statement I gather that you are resorting to polemics, and not to rational debate.

Good luck!

44 posted on 10/28/2006 5:18:45 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
It's become ~very~ hard [& dangerous] to discuss the philosophy of constitutionalism in some of the forums..

You think that's hard? Try discussing actual science that the fundies don't like. You would think that witch burning is back in vogue.

I hear you.. I try to stick to 'political science', but the majority rule crowd always manages to divert discussion to 'moral majority' questions. -- Fancy that.

45 posted on 10/28/2006 5:26:49 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It's become ~very~ hard [& dangerous] to discuss the philosophy of constitutionalism in some of the forums..

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, tpaine.

Still, the constitutionalists have to step up to the plate, or else the concept of human liberty will be lost for lack of an adequate, that is reasonable defense against the ideologists who attack the very foundations of a free republic.

And so, from my heart I thank you tpaine for stepping up to the plate....

All I would wish to add is this: friends of liberty -- pass the ammunition, keep your powder dry, and do not fire until you see "the whites of their eyes."

Thanks for writing, tpaine. I really am delighted to see you again.

46 posted on 10/28/2006 5:27:24 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Delighted to see you too kiddo.. -- Now if we can just keep Voegelin out of the discussion maybe I can keep up ---


47 posted on 10/28/2006 5:36:11 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Voegelin!


48 posted on 10/28/2006 5:38:32 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Delighted to have something nourishing to chew on. I have been tasting the paste of a wannabe libertarian on another thread today and am hungry.
Two thoughts -
The notion of religion as subjective misses the mark. Religion is a construct, an edifice through which spiritually minded folk share their common convictions. This is to differentiate religion from a (personal) relationship with God. Religion is never subjective. It is as objective as the church down the street. It is manifest.
My relationship with Christ, however, is intensely personal and subjective. I cannot objectively prove that this relationship even exists. I can, however, stand on it absolutely and accept it as the unequivocal Truth in my life, before which all other truth must stand or fall.
This leads to my second thought on this wonderful article.

The Darwinian notion that all behaviors can be explained as of evolutionary advantage else they would not exist, forgets that a full 99% of all species are extinct. I dare say it was not their evolutionary advantage that led to their downfall. Rape, it could be better argued, is an evolutionary flaw producing the harshest treatment of those cursed with its predisposition.
Jesus taught us that we, His followers, will always be at war with the world. It is simply our willingness to stand in the breech and demand Truth over truth that expresses the God who lives within us. His is the victory. There is no other.
49 posted on 10/28/2006 5:42:48 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
"Try discussing acutal science that the fundies don't like. You would think that witch burning is back in vouge."

We only burn the bad spellers.

50 posted on 10/28/2006 5:44:04 PM PDT by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-349 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson