[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[Case]

Hey Ya'll,

I have dropped out of whatever flow this thing had so let me just chime in
with a couple of observations.

About all I can get out of why we hate Dawkins is he has a nasty attitude.
Nothing about whether what he is saying makes sense. Since I don't care
about his snotty attitude and he makes senses to me, he is aces in my book.

One of the chief problems is all this religion talk is how to save the baby
when we dump the suds. One of the things that really got me interested in
studying the early history of the Christian church was why anybody bought
this weirdness in the first place. Modern Christianity is a mishmash of
Hebrew and Greek thought. How did they get tangled up in the first place? I
think Elaine Pagels spells it out in the Gnostic Gospels or it could be in
her book on Satan. But briefly it goes something like this: The Greeks had
developed a high flown metaphysics, First causes and all that, but in the
end; like the MoQ they still could not define the Good or decide if
something was right or wrong or settle philosophical disputes among people
with the same philosophical position.

The Jews on the other hand had a highly developed system of ethics and
social conduct without much metaphysics. They just followed the law and the
law was good. In Roman times morality had sunk to all time lows, with murder
as a sporting event and the vomitorium as a party staple. Emperors lusted
after their sisters and invited the faithful to worship their horses. 

Regular folks were attracted to the system of ethics and morality that the
Jews offered. The Jews being a stiff-necked people were not all that
interested in having the pagans join hands with them. One thing led to
another and voila you get Christianity as a bizarre mixture of Jewish ethics
and NeoPlatonism.

But it all seems to me to stem from the difficulty of attempting to
rationalize ethics. Ethics is about what ought to be and that is a tough
thing to justify.

Case

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:19 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

David M said to Case:
I would recommend Simon Critchley's 'Continental Philosophy' to see the 
limits of scientism, exactly the limits MOQ describes, -it is a short cheap 
book and you'll thank me. ..Read it or you'll remain part of the problem. 
This is a door I am opening, only you can walk through it. Challenge your 
suppositions.

dmb says:
I looked into that. Apparently, scientism is only one of his two main 
targets. Obscurantism is the other. He's trying to bridge the 
continental/analytic gap. He's not fond of postmodernism and feels pretty 
much the same way I do about Richard Rorty's anti-philosophy. Anyway, 
thought I'd share a quote (on the topic of religion) from an interview 
Critchley did for "The Believer" in August of 2003.

"...the war in Iraq is an entirely religous war. And it does indeed 
correspond to a reactionary right-wing diagnosis of the present... The 
U.S.-Iraq conflict is a confrontation between two version of religous 
metaphysics. That is what we have to get rid of. People are perfectly happy 
to reject the terrorist metaphysics of Al-Qaeda, but they should be equally 
active in rejecting the reactive metaphysics of George W. Bush, which has 
transformed political discourse into religous discourse, in particular 
through his careless use of categories such as 'evil'."

Naturally, I was charmed by this and agreed with it even before I read it.

Missouri Case said:
Show me a theological idea that has confronted science head on and remains 
anything but an interesting historical oddity. What's left is just waiting 
its turn.

dmb says:
Recently, I read a piece by Terry Eagleton (Oddly, a Marxist and a devout 
Catholic) in which he takes Dawkins to task. In it he said, yes of course we

should reject those fundamentalist, literalist types, but also went on the 
defend theism. Sort of. He's says stuff like, "God is the condition of 
possibility for all entities". I guess that's supposed to be a theological 
idea worthy of a postmodern literary critic like Eagleton, but I really have

no idea what it means. I suppose this is the sort of thing Critchley finds 
"a little disgusting". Anyway, it seems that theists that want to 
distinquish themselves from the fundamentalist mob like to point out that 
Dawkins and that type of scientific atheist have a good case against the 
anthropomorphic god of Sunday school fame, but that they don't understand 
this other type of sophisticated sort. This usually means that the scientist

hasn't specifically engaged theology. Eagleton even condemned his for 
probably not knowing about the epistemology of a 13th century theologian or 
some such thing. Its especially fun to watch him use postmodern thought in 
order to assert premodern beliefs against modern scientific beleifs. Its a 
little bit like watching someone make animals out of balloons, except 
without the balloons. Instead of inflated rubber, they contort themselves 
and their beliefs until a facsimile is achieved.

I saw Dawkins (taped TV) speaking from a college near Liberty University, 
the one so famous for being a giant bible college. I think its Jerry 
Falwell's institution and remains unaccredited. Anyway, Dawkins was only 
near the place, but students and teachers from the Baptist "university" were

there to ask challenging questions - or what they took to be serious 
challenges. But the secular students who were hosting Dawkins (I think it 
was a women's college) were vocal enough to make it clear whose side they 
were on. The Liberty kids pretty much got laughed out of the place. At one 
point, as part of his answer, Dawkins told one of the Liberty students that 
he really ought to think about attending "a proper University". The students

hosting the event thought that was pretty funny and right on, as if they had

some stored up feeling about the low intellectual quality of the neighboring

institution. Yes, the "regular" students scored a lot of points and if it 
were a game, you'd have to say they won. But behind that rivalry there is a 
real difference. And the sad thing about the kids who were getting the 
religious "education" is that they're perfectly earnest and sincere about 
complete nonsense. They have a fossilized dinosaur bone in a display case 
there and they tell their students that its 5,000 years old. If a scientist 
wants to complain about that and expose the fraud or ignorance or the 
intellectual dishonest behind such nonsense, its perfectly fine with me. To 
that extent, we all agree with Dawkins, right?

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk
.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowson
ecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail