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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-349 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-349 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