Anybody gets an open flame next to that straw man of yours and the entire state of Wyoming is going up like a torch. Nobody's afraid of science. Lots of people are afraid of bad science, dishonest science or science whose facts are twisted and distorted to serve a political end.

Scientism is not the biggest threat facing humanity, but its on up there. I'm much more interested in building a wisdom society than a knowledge society. Knowledge download and upload as a foundation of human societies is preposterous- knowledge without wisdom is very dangerous. The systematic denouncement of all human wisdom before the Enlightenment troubles me deeply, as a young person, who has to deal with the nihilistic consequences and almost total collapse of the sacred canopy and sense of inherent value and dignity among my compatriots.

The exchange of goods and services is a small part of what we do as human beings. We are not survival machines with a powerful onboard computer, as much of modern science purports, we are spiritual beings made in the image of God. Our souls have shriveled, and unless we can quickly remember who we are, we are through.

Mr Magda,

Your comments are spot on. Scientists like Richard Dawkins want to inform us that our sole purpose in life is to process DNA, but have the nerve to jump on a soapbox about global warming. Is it not religion that's concerned with morality? As one who supports ID, one of the most frequent arguments from the Evolution side is that Evolution has as much to do with morality as it does photosynthesis.

In the same vein, Scientists have yet to prove that Evolution happens across unlike species with empirical, observable evidence. Yet, they want us to believe that the earth is getting warmer when there is just as much evidence as humans evolving from primates. Honestly, what it comes down to is the same charge that they condemn religion with: mythology. In the ancient world, "mythos" functioned to have people learn certain objective values. Yet, those myths were widely understood to be fable. Conversely, scientists want us to take their "mythos" as fact regardless of any proof. Global warming is a doctrine that requires faith, and I just don't have it.

That's not to say I think we should annihilate the world because it's our dominion. As an Episcopalian, I fully support all green initiatives, including the purchase of local food.

James Pirrung

Wow. What an astonishing, anti-science trio of comments from Episocpalians, whom we generally think of as more educated than the average bear. You three view "scientists" in much the same say as most non-religious view "Christians". So don't be surprised if the scientists and intellectuals are as put off by that as you are when non-believers equate you with Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps.

Mr Pirrung, the "evidence" for evolution across all species is incontrovertible: it's literally in our DNA. (However, it is perfectly compatible with a belief in God, regardless of Dawkins and his ilk). THe evidence for climate change is also very sound. We don't deal in mythos. We deal in numbers and facts of record. Interpretation may differ, but a vast majority of scientists have a common conclusion on both these topics based firmly on the data.

Mr Magda: nihilism? Really? Do you have any conception what modern scientists are trying to do? Do you really believe we are interested in "goods and services"? Trust me, no one has a sense of
wonder equivalent to a biologist watching a cell divide in real time. And nobody gets rich in this profession.

Mr Johnson: "science whose facts are twisted and distorted to serve a political end." Trust me, the biggest distortion of science is the willful ignorance and dismissal of its findings by non-scientists. Scientists weigh evidence and come to conclusions, most of which are actually value-neutral. Politicians may distort it, but the vast, vast majority of scientists believe that the worst sin any of us scientists can commit is to lie about the data. And you can't blame the scientists who are really trying to find an actual truth from the misuse of their work)

Here we have three folks who have between them articulated clearly why some of my colleagues are anti-religion, because for too many of my colleagues, this is all they hear from people of faith--fear, dismissal, and antagonism. From medically relevant discoveries from antibiotics to vaccination, to the pure wonder of the life of a deep ocean vent-- and you all dismiss it as somehow the enemy, rather than a present example of the wonder of creation. Does it matter whether you consider that wonder comes from God and I consider it comes from the laws of physics?

This proves the truth of the AAAS lament, that we as scientists have done a damn poor job of explaining to you what we do and why.

Susan Forsburg

Susan,

I did not critique science, only scientism. Your article was steeped in scientism. The article linked to this blog was deeply offensive to indigenous people, was triumphalist, and suggested that science should lead us into a "knowledge" society.

As religious people, we do not have to fit into your agenda or preconceived idea about what liberal or educated religious people can or should think. I am wooly liberal theologically, but I still think scientism has colonized just about every field of human endeavor in the modern era- as one writer said, it is our "sacral" way of knowing- but many of its theorists, when asked privately, relay their belief in an ontologically meaningless universe, with life little more than an accumulation of random micromutations

True, the church threw the first volleys with Galileo, Bruno, and the rest. But as a result we have been left with a world that sees Spirit as epiphenomena, rather than the heart of this universe and all others. Religion is fine as long as it stays in its purported "domain, " a world where God is somewhere out there, and science can tell us everything we need to know about how "this" world works.

I will state it even more plainly. I do not think the "Nature" that naturalism seeks to study exists. I am not sure anything "exists"- because I am not sure that there is such a thing as an object- given we, the world, God, are Subjects. The nature that science studies is an "objective" abstraction, created by metaphysically bifarcating emotion and reason, spiritual modes of knowing with empirical ones, and insisting that nature is beholden to strict and unchanging standards. Of course God is not in this world- in its depths as every mystic from every tradition has said, so every supposed "miracle" must be a "suspension" of the "laws" of nature, all levels of reality that may be present no longer exist and all spiritual experience and gnosis is psychologized. Scientism has made us autistic, denying the Truth that is so obvious to the overwhelming majority of humans, that we have "that of God" in us and so does everything else.

Modern science may be excellent at observing the outer structure of Reality, that of patterns, correlations, and predictions - but proponents of scientism assert their domain's epistemology and methodology as superior and sufficient for the human spirit, and its abstract and bifarcated methods, when raised to the level of an entire worldview, impoverishes us and fractures us in the depths of our being, causing us to doubt the Realest and most sacred moments and intuitions of our lives, and rendering us unable to face the existential challenges that lie ahead.

And as wonderful as watching a cell divide is, for me, watching a heart transformed, or a soul healed, is even more so. Of course, you don't believe in the soul, or the heart as the spiritual center of the human being. Yours is a wonder from the neck up, and we can not think our way out of the mess we are in. As Cynthia Bourgeault, an Episcopal priest, has said: we will be saved by unitive consciousness (which is to say- a spiritual realization of the way things really are in there deepest level) or not at all. Watching a cell divide may be part of that, but it is not the whole ball of wax.

You say some interesting things, Josh, but I must protest when you characterize Susan as having an "agenda or preconceived idea". On an intellectual level, that's the exact OPPOSITE of what she does: science can't work if limited by agendas and preconceived ideas.

And on an emotional level, Susan's just a mensch, plain and simple. A far better Episcopalian than most (inc. Yours Truly), even WITH the handicap (NB: in a golfer's sense) of not having a personal relationship w/ Christ! [ala that bad movie of a few months ago, "I Don't Know How She Does It!" ;-)]

Show the wisdom you're looking for in this discussion, Josh, and please drop your "preconceived idea" re Dr Forsburg. Thank you!

JC Fisher

From Susan:

"whom we generally think of as more educated than the average bear"

In my book that is a preconceived idea.

But let's not get into a game of he said she said. I said nothing about evolution, global warming, or conservative views of "salvation." My comments were and are directed at the triumphalist tone of the posted article

I hold a graduate degree in social science, and would not have pursued such study if not convinced of science's ability to contribute to humanity's well being. But it was in academia that I also saw the full effects of scientism's colonization of most domains of human endeavor. The scientific method can say nothing about non empirical reality, by its own admission, and limits itself to "naturalistic" explanations of "nature."

At ten stages, subjectivity enters the scientific process (at a minimum), and this applies a great deal more when you get to social science

1.) Initial observation of nature through a naturalistic lens, and proposal that the object under investigation can be explained through "natural" means in its entirety (see my previous post about nature- a metaphysical abstraction that is free of divinity, spontaneity, and is "law bound" at all times)

2.) Proposal of a "naturalistic" hypothesis from among

3.) A number of competing theories

to address

4.) a number of possible phenomena a particular researcher could choose to address

5.) Reliance upon a particular philosophical and/or empirical literature within a specialized sub discipline or theoretical perspective within the domain you are investigating

6.) Selection of a particular sample based on

7.) Particular metaphysical criteria, such as what will best meet the standards of "objectivity" or "generalizability"

8.) Deployment of particular scientific tests from a number of possible options

9.) Publication in a particular journal among many options, often for ego satisfaction needs (the high end journals tend to be the most "objective" and "prestigious")

10.) Dissemination of the results to particular audiences and with particular, strictly "naturalistic" explanations offered, often couched in the language of technocratic rationality, as the AAAS website clearly exemplifies.

Science is one of the most abstract ways of knowing, and works very well in certain areas of human inquiry, but much less so in others. I think it works particularly well in its ability to amplify our ability to discern sense phenomena and find causality within the "natural" world. But It is one tool in humanity's epistemological toolbox, but in its current form it functions very poorly as a metaphysic (worldview) because there is so very, very much it leaves out of its evaluation. Wisdom comes from encountering reality at depth and considering ultimacy. There is nothing in a secular, scientific worldview that can compare with a comprehensive religious worldview at its best.

Mr Magda,

If science had the evidence to support Evolution and Global Warming, no one would doubt it. For example, Holocaust deniers are plain silly for dismissing it as a hoax. Anyone can go to Auschwitz or Drachau and see the evidence. Instead, denial in this case has a racist agenda. Likewise, the academic support of Evolution and Global Warming are political agendas rather than intellectual ones. The former seeks to eliminate the expression of religion, to include even the liberal variety. Global Warming is nothing more than a scare tactic to get people to take care of the earth. Honestly, if that's the goal, let's work on get the message out their truthfully and not with fear-filled fallacies. I believe TEC does a great job of promoting global responsibility without descending into untruth.

James Pirrung

edited ~ed.

The data is available - James and Josh- you can believe otherwise but the planet is warming and humans have a role to play for good or ill. It is not a left wing plot.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and others are urging people to take seriously Climate Change and the human role in it. From Anglican Communion News Service
Leaders representing the UK's mainstream churches will today call for repentance over the prevailing 'shrug-culture' towards climate change.
Rt Hon Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury; Rt Rev Richard Chartres, Bishop of London; Most Rev Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales; Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and leaders of the Methodist, Baptist and URC churches are among those signing Operation Noah's Ash Wednesday Declaration.
A short public service of prayer and dedication to launch the Declaration will be held at St Mary-Le-Bow, Cheapside, London (5pm), and at numerous churches around the country.
'Traditionally, Christians commit themselves to repentance and renewed faith in Jesus Christ on Ash Wednesday,' said David Atkinson, Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Southwark. 'We must live out that faith in relation to our damaging consumer economy, over-dependence on fossil fuels and the devastation we, as a species, are inflicting on God's world. We believe that responsible care for God's creation is foundational to the Gospel and central to the church's mission.'
The Declaration, also signed by Most Rev Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, is framed around seven biblical themes and argues that, to be a Christian is to accept the call to radical discipleship and to work through the implications for church life of a real change in lifestyle.

PS to Christopher - I did not write the article above and no longer live in Wyoming - maybe you should join me in giving up snarky comments for Lent.

Josh said of science,
" its current form it functions very poorly as a metaphysic (worldview) because there is so very, very much it leaves out of its evaluation."

and james said,
"the academic support of Evolution and Global Warming are political agendas rather than intellectual ones. The former seeks to eliminate the expression of religion, to include even the liberal variety"

Both of you are making a fundamental error. Josh, Science is NOT trying to be a metaphysic world view. It is trying to explain the facts as we see them in the world about us.

And science in general (evolution in particular) is NOT attempting to eliminate the expression of religion -- regardless of the arguments of Richard Dawkins.

Indeed, many scientists are explicitly religious (see, for example, here for a study on this subject and the comments of Francis Collins, head of the National Insittutes of Health, one of our most prominent biologists and an evangelical Christian.)

Indeed, an argument has been made that Christians should be the most eager scientists .

This "science vs religion" meme is a false conflict set up by fundamentalists on both sides. It is disheartening to see it continue in the comments section here, and an explicit unwelcome made to those who attempt to reconcile, appreciate, and live among the two.

Susan Forsburg

I think that Isaac Asimov puts it well:

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

James Mackay.

I definitely trust the evidence on global warming... as I explicitly stated above.

Susan, I do not subscribe to various forms of the NOMA view, as Francis Collins does. I think science, and especially social science, in its current form, is wildly incompatible with religion in its current form. Both need to change (though admittedly, religion more so than science because of its fundamentalism).

This has been brought about by historical circumstances. Francis Collins is a good and sincere man, and he is always trotted out by the scientific community as "proof" that science and religion in their current form can go together. Francis is a conservative Evangelical, which is a religious orientation that has only been around for a few hundred years, and views science as telling us about "this" world and religion as telling us about the "supernatural" world (I have heard him say so myself). (And even then, of distinguished scientists, only 4 percent identify as Evangelical.)

I do not think that reality is so constituted, because I do not think that there is any part of Nature where God is not, which is a premodern view. I agree that science can look for facts about the natural world, but so can spirituality- and for thousands of years, though differing on particulars, religions have uncovered universal spiritual truths in the same way that science is now discovering material truths.
Furthermore, there are communities of practice where seekers can go for themselves to find this reality.

But religion has been softly patronized as belonging to this "other" world- and nearly all of its enduring truths have either been forgotten or downplayed in the modern era.

Religion has always taught a society built around Spirit, love and justice, and going beyond the ego, but now we are talking about knowledge societies, where everyone can be trained to upload and download knowledge at the drop of a hat to accommodate corporations in an endless competition for unnecessary goodies, thus expanding our ecocidal ways to ignorant indigenous people (where have we heard that before?) as if what they have to teach us is less valuable than our "generous" contribution of antibiotics, condoms, "debt" relief, representing a tiny fraction of what Western civilization has stolen from them, we who have forgotten just about everything that matters as a society and a culture.

Josh,
Don't hate me but I don't consider "social science" to be science in the terms of this discussion. I mean the natural sciences (and I expect the AAAS does too). Your argument against "science" to me seems grounded in a social science aspect, which makes sense given your background.

In any case, you write "religions have uncovered universal spiritual truths in the same way that science is now discovering material truths. "

But my whole point is that science (as I mean it) is not interested in "spiritual truths". It is not interested in cultural hegemony or corporatism. It is simply interested in understanding the real world in measurable physical ways. Religion tells us nothing about the molecules that regulate cell division, the metabolism of an organism living on a sulfurous vent, the geology under volcanic eruption, the physics of the sun. These are simply not in the same realm.

It seems to me that your antagonism towards science is based on what our society does with its output, and not the thing itself. You are confusing scientific discovery with the coarseness of a materialist culture.

You may consider that what people like me do is irrelevant at best and actively harmful. (Aside: I am a molecular geneticist who does basic cancer research). So be it; I think you will find moving back into the middle ages to be rather difficult and distinctly unpleasant in a whole host of ways. But before you go, could you please read this post on the subject?

Oops, that was me, Susan Forsburg

Hey Susan,

I do not disrespect your work, and I am well aware what "natural" science people think of social science. ;-) I am not against science, only scientism.

You do not see science as linked to any of the problems of modernity, but I do. Science is not intrinsically the problem, I agree, only its colonization of all the value spheres. But I do see the separation of Nature and Spirit as a very grave problem, and the articles you linked do not give me any hope of healing the divide.

But even your comment just now suggests a subtle sense of what I am talking about. By saying we should not go "back" to the Middle Ages, you are placing your faith in progress- an unending devotion of science, given its epistemological enterprise. But when science is allowed to colonize all the value spheres, we never consider that what was in the past may be of continuing, even superior value, to what we have today.

I think the general scope and aim of premodern metaphysics is superior to modern metaphysics, not necessarily all of its specific assertions. But the modern scientific era has settled on materialistic naturalism, and postmodernism does nothing to dislodge this, just deconstruct the ways that it is oppressive. So yes, it is true that I think that people in the "Middle" Ages had a superior worldview, but I no more think we should "go back" to a medieval epistemology wholesale than I do Medieval dentistry.

The troubling fact is, that when it comes down to it, in the religious worldview, while the material benefits of this lifespan are a gift and a blessing, finding one's place in the grand scheme of things and living from the heart, as the ancients taught, is even more important, because it allows us to live this wonderful life from a sacred center that is of eternal import (and that is not death denial- its the way things are, I believe). Because of this, those who have lost less of their spirituality have far more to offer us than we materialists do in exchange.

Susan, since you linked me a couple of good articles, I will link you one, which is in a series of discussions on science and spirit. The author explains my position better than I ever could, with a concrete example

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/november2010gabel

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/nov2010_toc

As indicated by a quote by Isaac Asimov, those who support scientific arguments over theological ones deem themselves as "intellectuals" and others as "ignorant." In reality, science and theology have two separate aims with rather wide perspectives and views. It is grossly inappropriate for a scientist to dismiss a well-educated theologian as an ignoramus simply because he/she doesn't agree with their perpective just as for a theologian to do the same toward the scientist. Dr. Forsburg, I agree that science and religion do not HAVE to contradict, but they usually do. Even in TEC, conservatives are called mean-spirited names by the liberal variety because we reject their dismissal of biblical authority. It's not just Dawkins; it's also fellow religious. This attitude even exists in some of your earlier posts.

A worldview that comes primarily from Scripture will always contradict humankind's best attempts to discover the world's mysteries, i.e., science. If we believe that God revealed his Word to us through the Bible, we must use this revelation to critique the world around us. Otherwise, we have the ever-changing constructs of human thought. God must be our anchor.

James Pirrung

Ah, I see we're back to the space religious liberals have had to occupy since the nineteenth century...

a.) To the desacralized universe of naturalistic materialism,

b.) And to the theocratic fantasyland of fundamentalism-

We quietly choose
c.) none of the above

Mr Magda,

Why do you assume that those of us who actually believe God's revelation to us in Scripture stand for a "theocratic fantasyland?" Not all conservatives are fundamentalists, as you suggest. Also, not all of us support theonomy, which is what I think you really mean. "Theocracy" is a government operated directly by God or an appointed representative. A theonomy is a human one governed according to a perception of divine will. I would love the former, but oppose the latter.

The Church is not a democracy or a consensus of opinion. It is supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, including the ones liberals object to.

James Pirrung

Because I don't think God wrote the Bible, and if He did, He needed a good editor. See the skeptic's annotated Bible online for the reasons I think this is the case. But we have been down this road before.

The reason I object is because of the terrible things in the Bible that fundamentalists support, the many good things they ignore, and the way you read the Bible in general, which, for example, would lead you to deny global warming at the expense of possibly the entire planet's wellbeing.

Jesus said when he left that he was going to send a fresh impartation of the Spirit for us, not an instruction manual. As Paul said, the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The Bible should be read in community, and anew, alongside the book of nature, if it is to remain a life giving resource to the church.

With the greatest possible humility, your posts on this website do not suggest to me a relationship with a living God, a God who is accessible to all who truly seek, but rather an idolatrous relationship with (your interpretation) of the Bible that causes great harm to the church and to the world. Such an idolatrous relationship leads you to continue to belittle gay people, make ridiculous statements about the natural world, and even call me an anti-chirst in a previous post because I did not agree with your interpretation of the resurrection.

I believe that the kind of faith that you continuously display on this board is exactly the kind of faith that has lead many hundreds of millions of people away from God altogether, because they think they have to choose between atheism and fundamentalism, both false choices based in flatland ontologies of God, Nature, and Spirit, bringing our planet to the breaking point in the process.

And I don't care to continue with you about this; this thread was for a discussion on an article posted on "anti-science."

A person who doesn't believe that God didn't inspire the Bible, and totally rejects it, has no right to use it for anything.

First of all, you don't read what I say. I have said that I support green initiatives and praised TEC for using other methods than the Global Warming hoax to further them. In typical liberal fashion, you broadbrush me with your vehement hatred of conservatives. BTW, there's a major difference between conservative and fundamentalist, even if liberals don't care. People on the left hate those who stand for something.

1Jn 2 makes it clear that those who reject Jesus' incarnation and relationship with God are antichrists. If you don't like that fact, take it up with God.

It's ironic to me that you judge me and say that I have no relationship with God but rebuke me for what you perceive are my actions. First of all, I called you nothing; I quoted the Bible. Second, I never made any statements about your faith in the way you did mine. Honestly, if there's a such thing as "liberal fundamentalism," your posts definitely show it, Mr Magda. Your spite for conservative Christians is saddening.

James Pirrung