Culture

A reader sent me a link from this article published on the Huffington Post. The author is hostile towards religion (Huffington Post writers tend to be) but it is an interesting read nevertheless. Positing science versus religion is a false dichtomy of course since it really draws from the conflict between the philosophical materialism of the late nineteenth century and the acceptance of transcendent causes and operations (religion) that preceded that era; a conflict still played out today. Note too his silence of the great “successes” of atheism, particularly the idealism of Marx and the blood soaked legacy found everywhere it has been implemented.

The author does not realize that the foundation of knowledge is not “fact” but narrative. The scientific system, in other words, could not have arisen except through the conceptual framework shaped by Christianity (anthropology, teleology, etc.). So too with the ethics he champions. Atheist ethics don’t have a pedigree or tradition. Atheism is a relatively recent invention (not to be confused with paganism) and too often ends up embracing ideology, be it Hitler’s Final Solution, Stalin’s Gulags or even Margaret Sanger’s elimination of the Blacks (still carried forward by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to name some. I’d be a bit more cautious touting the virtues of atheism if I were him.

To see how scientists are repudiating the materialist assumptions that the author ignorantly asserts are self-evident, read George Gilder’s Evolution and Me.

Source: Huffington Post

Most people believe that the Creator of the universe wrote (or dictated) one of their books. Unfortunately, there are many books that pretend to divine authorship, and each makes incompatible claims about how we all must live. Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned people, these irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an appalling amount of human conflict.

In response to this situation, most sensible people advocate something called “religious tolerance.” While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive. It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves — repeatedly and at the highest levels — about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality.
Continue reading →