John Farrell linked to a really interesting post on Dispatches From The Culture Wars yesterday, which talked about the controversy within the pro-evolution side of the creationist/ID/evolution debate over whether religion and science are compatible.
The author, a self described deist, takes Dawkins, Dennett and their various blogsphere supporters to task for asserting that science and religion are totally incompatible, and that true intellectuals are "too smart" to be religious.
Normally, when I wade into the evolution controversy, I'm arguing either against fellow Christians who assert that evolution is untrue, or secularists who insist that religion has been disproved by science. So it's interesting reading someone who is not in the religious camp (being a deist but not of any particular religious creed) dealing with a similar set of questions. The author's comments are general sensible and well thought-out, but perhaps more interesting is the range of opinions displayed by the commentors (most of whom disagreed with the author and asserted that religion and science are incompatible.)
Definately worth a read.
Advertisement.
2 hours ago
3 comments:
I read your posts to Ed's comments section. Excellent points. (I find by the way that Ed's commenters tend to be more thoughtful (less flameable) than a lot of other threads.
Generally people struck me as being pretty polite, considering the massive differences of belief involved.
However, it seemed like some of the more rationalist posts just couldn't quite wrap their minds around the idea of something existing in an objective but non-material sense (e.g. Justice). There's just no way that you can say that an average of preference (most people react negatively when treated in manner Y) is the same sort of thing as an actual moral precept (it is wrong to steal).
Thanks for the link--it was an excellently thought-out piece and spoke eloquently to an issue that has frustrated me for years. Ah, well--"the fool doth think he is wise..."
Post a Comment