Archives de la catégorie science & religion
Scientists think they can prove that free will is an illusion. Philosophers are urging them to think again. Download a PDF of this article
The John Templeton Foundation put money to support « research bridging theology, philosophy and natural science« . They can’t help it, theology all over the campus 😦
Jerry Coyne & John Haught
certainly not 😉
« Spiritual » atheists explained, by Sigmund at Jerry Coyne’s WEIT. Where Elaine Ecklund and the John Templeton Foundation are discussed. Great analysis of Ecklund’s efforts to create the illusion of spiritual atheists.
Vous connaissez bien entendu Francis Collins, le créationniste à qui Jean Staune veut ressembler (il n’y arrivera probablement jamais le pauvre). Francis Collins qui utilise le fric de la John Templeton Foundation pour tenter « the integration of science and Christian faith » à BioLogos.
Collins a dit :
angry atheists are out there using science as a club to [
to] hit believers over the head
Il exprime l’idée de travers. Ca colle mieux à la réalité ainsi :
Angry Atheists are out there using rationality (including science) as a club to hit irrational beliefs over the head (including religious beliefs), hoping to make them vanish.
Mais il nous la joue martyre à la chrétienne 😛
Ce n’est pas la première fois que je souligne que les chrétiens en général, les catholiques en particulier sont des créationnistes. Il y a eu des discussions dans les commentaires de ce blog à ce sujet, où certains, y compris des chrétiens athées ou athées chrétiens, difficile à dire, on fait valoir que traiter les catholiques de créationnistes n’était pas de leur goût. Comme si c’était une question de goût…
Read it and go add your name to the signatories if you feel comfortable with it;
Although we may diverge in our philosophies and actions toward religion, we share a common goal: the promulgation of good science education in Britain and America—indeed, throughout the world. Many of us, like myself and Richard Dawkins, spend a lot of time teaching evolution to the general public. There’s little doubt, in fact, that Dawkins is the preeminent teacher of evolution in the world. He has not only turned many people on to modern evolutionary biology, but has converted many evolution-deniers (most of them religious) to evolution-accepters.
Nevertheless, your employees, present and former, have chosen to spend much of their time battling not creationists, but evolutionists who happen to be atheists. This apparently comes from your idea that if evolutionists also espouse atheism, it will hurt the cause of science education and turn people away from evolution. I think this is misguided for several reasons, including a complete lack of evidence that your idea is true, but also your apparent failure to recognize that creationism is a symptom of religion (and not just fundamentalist religion), and will be with us until faith disappears. That is one reason—and, given the pernicious effect of religion, a minor one—for the fact that we choose to fight on both fronts.
The official policy of your organizations—certainly of the NCSE—is apparently to cozy up to religion. You have “faith projects,” you constantly tell us to shut up about religion, and you even espouse a kind of theology which claims that faith and science are compatible. Clearly you are going to continue with these activities, for you’ve done nothing to change them in the face of criticism. And your employees, past and present, will continue to heap invective on New Atheists and tar people like Richard Dawkins with undeserved opprobrium.
We will continue to answer the misguided attacks by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks. I don’t expect them to abate, but I’d like your organizations to recognize this: you have lost many allies, including some prominent ones, in your attacks on atheism. And I doubt that those attacks have converted many Christians or Muslims to the cause of evolution. This is a shame, because we all recognize that the NCSE has done some great things in the past and, I hope, will—like the new BCSE—continue do great things in the future.
There is a double irony in this situation. First, your repeated and strong accusations that, by criticizing religion, atheists are alienating our pro-evolution allies (liberal Christians), has precisely the same alienating effect on your allies: scientists who are atheists. Second, your assertion that only you have the requisite communication skills to promote evolution is belied by the observation that you have, by your own ham-handed communications, alienated many people who are on the side of good science and evolution. You have lost your natural allies. And this is not just speculation, for those allies were us, and we’re telling you so.
An issue of Synthese, free for a few more days. Go get the pdf and read them when you have some free time.
- Introduction, by Glenn Branch
- Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited, by Robert T. Pennock
- Are creationists rational?, by John S. Wilkins
- Foiling the Black Knight, by Kelly C. Smith
- Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information”, by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit
- Design and its discontents, by Bruce H. Weber
- The science question in intelligent design, by Sahotra Sarkar
- Intelligent design in theological perspective, by Niall Shanks and Keith Green
- The non-epistemology of intelligent design: its implications for public policy, by Barbara Forrest
- Evolution and atheism: Has Griffin reconciled science and religion?, by James H. Fetzer