On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:18:02 -0500 (CDT), Susan B wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Someone posted this on another list I am on. It's from M. Scott Peck, "The
>>Road Less Traveled," (1978):
>>
>>"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw out the baby
>>[religion] with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested,
>>is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world
>>view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or
>>soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science
>>from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with
>>ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy."
SB>I thought this was the weakest part of the book and I wasn't even involved
>in the evolution/creation debate when I read the book in 1979. Then, as now,
>I thought he was dead wrong. There are just too many scientists who are
>religionists of one kind or another to say that science is thowing babies or
>bathwater anywhere.
I haven't read the book, but I am sure that Peck was well aware that there
are individual scientists who are adherents of various religions.
But his point is that there is a dominant "world view of science" (ie.
materialistic-naturalism), which does in fact regard all "religion"
(including Christianity) as based on "ignorance" or "superstition."
The deeper reason that Peck makes why science is not just neutral towards
religion but actually hostile to it, is because "science itself..is a religion."
SB>Someone should take Peck to task for ignoring nuclear
>physics in his study of psychology. If he protests that nuclear physics has
>nothing at all to do with pysychology, so what! He's just showing his bias!
I don't understand what Susan's point is here.
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:25:48 -0700, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>SJ>"...This is particularly the case when we have come to science
>>>from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated
>>>with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy."
>CC>As it should be, because it IS.
Thanks to Chris for confirming Peck's (and my) point!
>CC>Peck should not be criticizing scientists and science, but those
>>darn facts.
It is not the "facts" but as Chris and Susan's highly prejudiced posts show,
what it *really* is is the prior metaphysics and *attitude* that materialist-
naturalists have before they even get to the facts.
>CC>When I walk down the street and someone
>hands me a pamphlet, I hardly EVER look at it and read, "Accept Einstein
>Into Your Heart and be SAVED!"
Well if Einstein *could* save, then they would!
[...]
>CC>Science can be a religion in the sense that people can try to hold
>"scientific" views on faith, and be dogmatic about them.
Indeed!
>CC>But I think it
>worth mentioning that science itself cannot be a religion. It is a body of
>knowledge and an empirical method for discovering and validating that
>knowledge and more empirical knowledge.
Chris contradicts himself here. If "Science can be a religion" in the way
"people can try to hold `scientific' views" then "science itself" *can* "be a
religion"!
CC>Saying that science can be a religion is like saying that mathematics can be
>a religion. At best, it's misleading. Oftentimes, this kind of claim is much
>worse; it is often dishonest.
I see no reason, given Chris' earlier admission that "people can try to hold
`scientific' views on faith, and be dogmatic about them", that "mathematics
can be a religion."
CC>It is often an attempt to make religion seem better by making science seem
>worse.
Chris appears to hold science as his religion, even though he may not
realise it. Science, like religion, is a human activity, that attempts to grapple
with different, but overlapping areas of a multi-dimensional, complex
reality. Both can be good or bad, depending on whether they more closely
approximating that reality.
But there is a one crucial difference between science and religion, as Ramm
pointed out:
"In science the principle of inter-subjectivity or objectivity prevails. What is
true for one scientist must be true for all. But this is not true in religion, for
if the pure in heart see God, then the impure do not, and what is true for
the pure is not true for the impure. God draws near to those who draw near
to Him, and He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. He is not
known to those who do not draw close to Him or to those who refuse to
seek Him. What is true for some is emphatically not true for all." (Ramm
B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1967 reprint, p245)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of
any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually
static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never
show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by
another, and change is more or less abrupt..." (Wesson R.G., "Beyond
Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45)
--------------------------------------------------------------------