Hi DMB, I'm not suggesting that piece is necessarily balanced .... clearly its content isn't, it is a counter-balance to the self-righteous scientific smugness he was railing against at that point in late 2009. (The same scientific smugness I've been pointing out since long before the science vs faith debate became fashionable again.)
Of course I'm not tone deaf to the pro-religious wording. The point is the need to read it, and the rest of what he says and writes .... with balance. Read what he actually says about science (not just in this piece) and understand that, rather that accusing people you disagree with of evil (or stupid) motives all the time. That just brings you down to Platt's level - something you mock me from suggesting we rise above. Ian On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:14 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian said: > ...Like I said Adrie, in what way, where do you get that idea from - his > penultimate paragraph? ... In what way is Ian Angell's home page "religious > fanaticism" Adrie ?!?! > > > dmb says: > > "This motley crew of smug self-professed humanists was intent on disgracing > the much-loved Christmas institution, in much the same way a Black Mass > profanes the Eucharist. How they must have chuckled at their cleverness... > Virtuous in their indignation against religion, they set about offending > every Christian in sight. Certain of their own faith in science, these > contemptuous and contemptible bigots thought nothing of trampling on the > beliefs of others. Such is the intellectual imperialism of scientism – a > prevalent and predominant attitude among those who dogmatically project the > scientific method as the one and only true way of acquiring knowledge about > reality and the nature of things. ... Indeed, the hubris that comes with an > unquestioned belief in scientific method, particularly when it is targeted at > social, political, commercial, and even religious concerns is an accident > waiting to happen. ...It’s time to nail the big lie of the last three > centuries, and stop this obsession with tidy methodical ‘rational’ solutions. > ‘Understanding through scientific theory, and applied via its methods’ does > not place us in control of human destiny. Indeed, there is no such thing as > ‘understanding’, only mere description through observation … and observation > is itself a delusion steeped in paradox. Both authors must admit it came as > quite a shock to them, both agnostics, that the words of a nineteenth century > hymn should resonate so well with their thinking: Immortal, Invisible, God > only wise. In light inaccessible hid from our eyes. (Hymns of Christ and the > Christian Life, Walter C. Smith.)" > > > That's where Adrie go the idea, Ian. And if you don't recognize the religious > motive behind this attack or the childish denigration used to mount that > attack, then you're not just tone-deaf, you're also blind and numb as well. I > mean, it's just so obvious. How can you not see it? Just read the quoted > except out loud and listen to yourself. It should be very clear that the > author hates science because it threatens his faith. > > Balance, my ass. > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
