Interesting post Textcritic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Here is where I find the greatest problem with the book: by never defining "science" or "religion", and by never writing explicitly about how science has been corrupted, or about how humanism is religious, they are attempting to manipulate their audience into seeing these things as interchangable. "Science" and "reason" are descibed as a part of "God's good creation", much in the same way as a tree or an individual culture might be considered as part of the creation. In so doing they have relegated EVERYTHING that is outside of their "biblical worldview" of God as an equal partner in the created order; science; religion; apples; marriage; automobiles; family; money; government; sex; technology are somehow all neutral. They obtain value, however, in how they are employed in the service of—or against—God. This not only implies, but encourages that an agenda underlie every human endeavor.
|
Of course they do; to a fundamentalist it always boils down to that. The foundation of their way of thought is divinely revealed truth through the Bible. If something contradicts the notion of revealed truth, it MUST be wrong, and any argument at all can be constructed against it with confidence because it's wrong, so the argument will by definition be sound.
The atheist buses are perfect examples. Some letters written to the editor (or wherever the objections are voiced) should be embarrassing to the authors and other faithful, but aren't because those arguments are, as you say, used in the service of God.
The response bus ads that are coming out are, predictably, "A fool says in his heart 'There is no God'." The scripture being taken out of context and being directed against atheists is ignored because it's in service of God. The implicit insult is ok because it's in service of God. The part of the beatitudes where Jesus says those who say to their brother "Thou fool" are in danger of hell fire can be ignored because it's in service of God (though I guess technically an atheist isn't a brother, not sure if brother means other Jew or other human).
Anyway, just ranting, but I think it all goes back to the idea of revealed truth. Science is opposite to this because science takes the position of ask the question and let the chips fall where they may.
There's an interesting set of short pieces I read recently about this:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html
Quote:
|
So, these authors are not necessarily "anti-science", but they are so "pro-Bible" as to obscure the real issues. I fear that the less erudite readers are prone to employ this fearful dichotomy between "God" and "EVERYTHING else" in such a way that they become cosmological dualists, envisioning all human (and natural) enterprises as either "good" or "evil".
|
Isn't that a description of all of history with humans? Everything's classified as either for us or against us, and those against us eventually have to be eliminated. Religion is just one avenue that gets expressed. Kin selection run amok.