Hi Arlo, Thanks for your reply, which I respond to below following the appropriate passage you presented.
[Mark] I appears to me that such an interpretation is a bit extreme and perhaps reactionary. [Arlo] I don't think so. As Andre pointed out, the entire piece is a merely a diatribe against "science", with nothing offered in terms of solution but a gentle nod back to the domain of theism. As I mentioned before, this is in-line with the historical rhetoric that has emerged from the apologist camp. In the 60's and 70's the rhetoric was to elevate "religion" to the level of "science". Theist archeologists, for example, sought to "prove" their book by finding the remains of Noah's Ark. In the 80's, with this endeavor failing, the rhetoric switched from elevating "religion" to lowering "science". With efforts to raise religion to the domain of science ending in failure, the new effort was to make "science" just another "religion". What is interesting, is another subtle shift in the rhetoric since the 90's, with the effort to lower "science" mostly failing, the rhetoric has adopted the nightmare demagoguery (to borrow Andre's observation) of political ideology. Thus it is becoming not enough to "lower" science to the level of "religion" but to demonize the entire edifice of "science" to make it "evil". This is high-lighted in the following passage from the Biblical " gotanswers.org". "Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions...." Here you see the lowering of science to just another religious belief. But, in a few sentences we see this rhetoric appear. "Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda." Those damned "atheistic scientists" and their evil "agenda". This is the place in the rhetoric where Angell appears, not content to make "science" just another "faith-based theism", he openly mocks and ridicules "science" as openly dangerous and in need of the tempering hand of "religion" to guide it lest it lead to villainy and evil. "Scientists" are a "smug" lot, intent of "disgracing" Christianity (since Angell neither mentions nor cites nor draws any reference to "religion" apart from "Christianity", it appears the two must be synonyms for him). As Pirsig would note, this is a move to subjugate a higher level by a lower level. It is immoral. [Mark in response] Some of this I addressed in my post just previous. The fact that certain Western religions need to incorporate tools of science to convince those sitting on the fence of its appropriateness, is simply pointing towards the somewhat nefarious power of Scientism. Religious talking points are trying to use analogies which are seemingly accepted by today's so called educated masses to provide a rational approach to the spiritual. I appreciate the historical perspective of the attempts that religion has made through the tools of science. But, as Phaedrus would say, both are analogies, Their power comes in their usefulness. Contemplation of the subjective is indeed useful for creating meaning in this existence. It's annihilation in our current society is perhaps destructive of one of the important attributes of the human mind. Looking for answers is inherent. Again, I do not see any threat to the institute of science, instead a threat to the institute of religion, and religious zealots do bring that upon themselves. An appreciation for the power of the dogma is important, and questioning such is only right. It is quite possible that both means are correct, and can coexist but not harmonize. Such coexistence and indeed bring about human realization. Pirsig uses the term rational spirituality for a reason. Such rationality is not just one-sided. Cheers, Mark 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
