![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Adam Frank, a prof @ Rochester, has been writing some articles for his blog @ Discover, trying to get the science side to recognize the "living" feeling, the "sense of the sacred" that comes from religion (where-as the atheists of the science side have an explanation for that which he seems to have decided to ignore), but for all of that, I think he's totally off-base and will not reach the audience that actually needs to be reached here, and I wrote this in reply:
The Sullen and the Silly: Beyond the Science v. Religion Debate, Part II | Reality Base | Discover Magazine:
The Sullen and the Silly: Beyond the Science v. Religion Debate, Part II | Reality Base | Discover Magazine:
I still see you as totally missing the point about those who want their religion to trump science. I almost think you’ve never read The Wedge Document (much less Dr. Forrest’s analysis of it).
The attack on science by the literalists is for POLITICAL gain. By diminishing science’s role in knowledge, they can substitute their version of things and use that to “unite” their followers into a larger political union and eventually take over the country through changing the laws.
They act to deny, misrepresent, and misappropriate science just as they do history (”Christian nation”, “Madison supported church involvement in politics”, “Washington was Christian”, “Jefferson went to church”, and many other lies as codified by the historical distortions of David Barton and friends).
Trying to reconcile science and religion is useless to these people because they have already committed to the idea that science is the enemy of their POLICIES, therefore it is the enemy of their religion.
You’ll never get science to support the policies these forces want, and therefore you can never get science to “fit” with their religion.
Never.
So I REALLY think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Moderates who can accept science and religion together already have. The handful that don’t know the political motivations of the science denialists will need to be taught the source of their denial - that the denialists want political control over their lives.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 12:04 am (UTC)Not that I advocate religion or the catholic church in any way.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 12:40 am (UTC)Not that I advocate religion or the catholic church in any way.