Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
THE question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions of our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so. For a sorry instance of present-day scientism, it would be hard to improve on Daniel C. Dennett's book. "Breaking the Spell" is a work of considerable historical interest, because it is a merry anthology of contemporary superstitions.
The orthodoxies of evolutionary psychology are all here, its tiresome way of roaming widely but never leaving its house, its legendary curiosity that somehow always discovers the same thing. The excited materialism of American society — I refer not to the American creed of shopping, according to which a person's qualities may be known by a person's brands, but more ominously to the adoption by American culture of biological, economic and technological ways of describing the purposes of human existence — abounds in Dennett's usefully uninhibited pages. And Dennett's book is also a document of the intellectual havoc of our infamous polarization, with its widespread and deeply damaging assumption that the most extreme statement of an idea is its most genuine statement. Dennett lives in a world in which you must believe in the grossest biologism or in the grossest theism, in a purely naturalistic understanding of religion or in intelligent design, in the omniscience of a white man with a long beard in 19th-century England or in the omniscience of a white man with a long beard in the sky.
...
There are a number of things that must be said about this story. The first is that it is only a story. It is not based, in any strict sense, on empirical research. Dennett is "extrapolating back to human prehistory with the aid of biological thinking," nothing more. "Breaking the Spell" is a fairy tale told by evolutionary biology. There is no scientific foundation for its scientistic narrative. Even Dennett admits as much: "I am not at all claiming that this is what science has established about religion. . . . We don't yet know." So all of Dennett's splashy allegiance to evidence and experiment and "generating further testable hypotheses" notwithstanding, what he has written is just an extravagant speculation based upon his hope for what is the case, a pious account of his own atheistic longing.
the distinction of science and scientism, the quotable line on polarization "intellectual havoc of our infamous polarization, with its widespread and deeply damaging assumption that the most extreme statement of an idea is its most genuine statement." make this a really nice and informative piece of writing appropriate for this discussion. This debate is twisted by the polarization from the extremes: YECism and naturalistic scientism, it is haunted by the reductionism of the far right to Scripture without science and the far left's, like Dennett of science without faith.
o'well. i hope you have a chance to drop by NYT and read it before 30 days have lapsed and it reverts to payware.
__________________ i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.
thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.
This debate is twisted by the polarization from the extremes: YECism and naturalistic scientism, it is haunted by the reductionism of the far right to Scripture without science and the far left's, like Dennett of science without faith.
May I qibble with this sentence. The use of the terms "far right" and "far left" to denote "reduction to Scripture without science" and "reduction to ...science without faith" suggests (perhaps not intentionally) that these positions equate to the political positions usually denoted by "right" and "left".
That is not a legitimate equation. People with a very strong right-wing view politically can be allied with Dennett on science. A good example is the nearly fascist stance of Libertarians, especially those who take their cue from Ayn Rand.
By the same token, people who may have a creationist take on scripture may be well to the left politically. This would fit the political/scientific description of a number of Christian socialists who have not delved much into science.
I like the 4 dimensional representation of political stance suggested by the political compass to the usual 2-dimensional spectrum of right/left in politics.
Yet even this does not take religious positions into account. The conservative/liberal spectrum in religion does not coincide with the right/left position in politics and should probably be supplemented as well with an authoritarian/libertarian axis as in the political compass. Even then there can be some extremely strange alignments of religious and political outlook.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
May I qibble with this sentence. The use of the terms "far right" and "far left" to denote "reduction to Scripture without science" and "reduction to ...science without faith" suggests (perhaps not intentionally) that these positions equate to the political positions usually denoted by "right" and "left".
you're absolutely right, they(right vs left) are just convenient labels for me. i might suggest that you look at Ken Wilber's 2 dimensional axis as well. same type of labels: internal vs external,
individual vs group see: http://noosphere.cc/integralpolitics12.html
right/left captures something in the YEC/OEC/TE/atheist continuum that i find useful despite your well pointed criticism.
see: http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/hap12.html
where i extend the notion to how the Presbyterian church splits. useful but not locked up in concrete.
just a quibble
I like the 4 dimensional representation of political stance suggested by the political compass to the usual 2-dimensional spectrum of right/left in politics.
the political compass linked to is 2-dimensional (plane)
the usual right left is 1-dimensional.....(line)
__________________ i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.
thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.
the political compass linked to is 2-dimensional (plane)
the usual right left is 1-dimensional.....(line)
Right. I took the terminology from Political Compass. Looks like they didn't check up on their geometry.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
"The distinction of science and scientism" - that's a powerful line!
I like the 4 dimensional representation of political stance suggested by the political compass to the usual 2-dimensional spectrum of right/left in politics.
Wow, you Americans do your politics in hyperspace? ;D
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Linear Mode
