The social network of backofthebook.ca, Canada's online magazine
Fundamentalist Atheists Seek to Take Over Science
How's that for a title, Fundamentalist Atheists Seek to Take Over Science? A bit sensationalist perhaps? It occurs to me as a response to two Nobel prize laureates attack on the Royal Society's Director of Education Michael Reiss' concession that yes, Creationism can be discussed in science classes, which the laureates characterized as "teaching Creationism in science class", as though Reiss was advocating giving it equal value with the theory of evolution. If you read his position you'll discover that he was acknowledging that some students will hold creationist beliefs, and that it is none-the-less still possible while acknowledging their beliefs to teach them evolutionary theory without expecting to demolish those beliefs within the context of "a 50 minute lesson".
Fundamentalist atheism is a religion, and one which I find even more annoying than fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist atheists deify science, and believe that they possess "THE TRUTH" by virtue of science, without the "vice of faith" as Richard Dawkins characterizes it in his essay Is Science a Religion?. No, Richard, science isn't a religion, but fundamentalist materialist atheism certainly is, and its attempt to co-opt science is not only distasteful, but dangerous to science.
Faith is fundamental to the human condition. I don't have a lot of it, but there are a couple of things that I accept as articles of faith. The most primary is that existence exists. I can't prove it, and a bright, sadistic, nihilistic philosopher could bat me around on the subject with the ease that a cat does a mouse. However, the exercise would not shake my faith.
For me, it follows from the existence of existence that there is an objective, absolute reality, possibly an absolute Truth. However, the kicker is that human perception and cognition are exactly that, human, and it is impossible to step outside of that to take an objective view. It is also impossible as a human to transcend the subjective perspective. This is why science is so precious and must never be turned into a religion or allowed to be co-opted by any fundamentalist group.
Perhaps the key to why science is so precious is in its requirement that all claims require adequate support for provisional acceptance. We cannot know absolute Truth, so science isn't about that. It's fluid, improvable. While it might be unthinkable to a fundamentalist atheist, even the theory of evolution could be blown out of the water were someone to come along with something better which conformed as well or better with our philosophy of science and its method.
That's why if philosophy of science and scientific method are the focus of science classes, discussing Creationism in science class is no threat. It's not about competing religious authorities, but rather something that fits well, and something which doesn't fit at all. That could make for a very instructional 50 minute lesson. The opposition to Creationism being discussed in science class comes from a fear of 'Our Authority' being challenged by 'Their Authority'. If all you're teaching in science class is truth from authority, then you aren't teaching science at all.
The improvability of scientific understanding makes another article of faith possible, namely that over time it will allow our understanding of Universe to become more and more congruent with absolute Truth. We'll never attain that ultimate objective, not while we remain human at any rate, but the progress in understanding facilitated by science over just the brief period of the past 400 years stands, I believe, in support of this article of faith.
From the perspective of religion, however, this flexibility of science may seem weak. People tend to turn to religion for timeless truths, not truths which may change out from under them with the next discovery or break through. That's why we need a restraining order against religion, including fundamentalist atheism, perhaps especially against fundamentalist atheism, where religion is not allowed within a thousand meters of science.
We do not need pop-skeptics saying ridiculous things like 'exceptional claims require exceptional proof' where they are the self-appointed assessors of what constitutes "exceptional". We do not need them to establish a Scientific Canon of Truth against which claims are assessed in a knee jerk way.
And we don't need them trying to shut down rational voices like that of the Royal Society's Director of Education when he recognizes the reality of the classroom and proposes intelligent ways with which to deal with it.
Fundamentalist atheism is a religion, and one which I find even more annoying than fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist atheists deify science, and believe that they possess "THE TRUTH" by virtue of science, without the "vice of faith" as Richard Dawkins characterizes it in his essay Is Science a Religion?. No, Richard, science isn't a religion, but fundamentalist materialist atheism certainly is, and its attempt to co-opt science is not only distasteful, but dangerous to science.
Faith is fundamental to the human condition. I don't have a lot of it, but there are a couple of things that I accept as articles of faith. The most primary is that existence exists. I can't prove it, and a bright, sadistic, nihilistic philosopher could bat me around on the subject with the ease that a cat does a mouse. However, the exercise would not shake my faith.
For me, it follows from the existence of existence that there is an objective, absolute reality, possibly an absolute Truth. However, the kicker is that human perception and cognition are exactly that, human, and it is impossible to step outside of that to take an objective view. It is also impossible as a human to transcend the subjective perspective. This is why science is so precious and must never be turned into a religion or allowed to be co-opted by any fundamentalist group.
Perhaps the key to why science is so precious is in its requirement that all claims require adequate support for provisional acceptance. We cannot know absolute Truth, so science isn't about that. It's fluid, improvable. While it might be unthinkable to a fundamentalist atheist, even the theory of evolution could be blown out of the water were someone to come along with something better which conformed as well or better with our philosophy of science and its method.
That's why if philosophy of science and scientific method are the focus of science classes, discussing Creationism in science class is no threat. It's not about competing religious authorities, but rather something that fits well, and something which doesn't fit at all. That could make for a very instructional 50 minute lesson. The opposition to Creationism being discussed in science class comes from a fear of 'Our Authority' being challenged by 'Their Authority'. If all you're teaching in science class is truth from authority, then you aren't teaching science at all.
The improvability of scientific understanding makes another article of faith possible, namely that over time it will allow our understanding of Universe to become more and more congruent with absolute Truth. We'll never attain that ultimate objective, not while we remain human at any rate, but the progress in understanding facilitated by science over just the brief period of the past 400 years stands, I believe, in support of this article of faith.
From the perspective of religion, however, this flexibility of science may seem weak. People tend to turn to religion for timeless truths, not truths which may change out from under them with the next discovery or break through. That's why we need a restraining order against religion, including fundamentalist atheism, perhaps especially against fundamentalist atheism, where religion is not allowed within a thousand meters of science.
We do not need pop-skeptics saying ridiculous things like 'exceptional claims require exceptional proof' where they are the self-appointed assessors of what constitutes "exceptional". We do not need them to establish a Scientific Canon of Truth against which claims are assessed in a knee jerk way.
And we don't need them trying to shut down rational voices like that of the Royal Society's Director of Education when he recognizes the reality of the classroom and proposes intelligent ways with which to deal with it.
Comment
-
Comment by Eric Pettifor on September 16, 2008 at 7:09pm - Michael Reiss has stepped down as the Royal Society's Director of Education over this controversy. It's very sad when so called 'scientists' prove to be as reactionary as any other group of religious nut jobs. This is just one example of how fundamentalist atheism is bad for science.
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Frank Moher on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Bobalicious to add comments!
Join this Ning Network