A Worthwhile Idea

Mr. Colson,

The question is:

In his "letter to a Southern Baptist pastor," biosociologist E.O. Wilson warns: "An alliance between science and religion, forged in an atomosphere of mutual respect, may be the only way to protect life on earth." Is such an alliance necessary? Possible?

You say: “All people of faith will applaud this proposal. History, as well as common sense, tells us that there should be a healthy respect between science and faith. The scientific method was after all developed by Christians”

But can this alliance be used to protect life on earth? More specifically, can this alliance be used to bring about responsible limiting of population growth; and what would you consider the optimal world population to be from a quality of life point of view?

My take on this cooperation on the environment that will bridge the gulf between science and conservative Christianity is that it offers a lot of encouraging promises to solve many problems relative to the environment.

Unfortunately, the elephant in the room is the more urgent imperative to get world wide population growth under control. I know this is a most unpopular subject, but I wonder what you and my fellow posters would have to say about the idea of a government mandated sterilization program to stop and/or reverse population growth in our country, and perhaps all countries of the world if such a program could be sold. And also, what would you consider to be the optimal world population from a quality of life point of view. I’m thinking that it would be on the order of half the current 6 billion.

Evolution is an observable fact.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory.

Friend,

I have qualms about the word "assumption" only because the word has negative baggage outside of the scientific context.

However, the assumptions that science does make are based on empirical observation. If observed phenomena contradicted our assumption about natural laws, then we would change our assumption to fit our observations. By contrast, religious doctrines and secular ideologies start with presuppositions about the world and they distort observed phenomena to fit those presuppositions.

Mark Eaton, you ARE a character. You really are.

Where is my evidence for Evolution? you ask.

Have you ever heard of a library? They have these things in there called Books.

You may want to read one or two. There should be hundreds for you to choose from.

Henry James:

you said "Science is a process based on only accepting the truth of rigorously tested hypotheses, and even then only accepting them until a more comprehensive explanatory system that comports with the evidence is developed.'.

If you have no evidence, then science is only a belief. It may be a more cleverly devised belief but without evidence you are accepting it on faith alone.

If science is based upon evidence, then were is your evidence for the theory of Evolution? Where is your eye-winesses evidence to the evolution of any single species? Where is your DNA evidence that links these "pre-human" ancestors to us?

Again, I emphasize that your science is a religion.

"All science proceeds on certain faith presuppositions. In the case of the sociobiologist, that presupposition is materialism, that nature alone explains existence."

Tonio, I think we have to say science does have some basic assumptions that it makes and I would say for good reason.

Sciece does assume that the natural laws are the same everywhere in the universe and that only facts can be used in the development of theories.

I guess you are questioning the use of the word 'faith', which is slipped in and we are left to wonder in what context to take it.

Colson ignorantly or deliberately
Distorts Newton's Biography

Newton CLEARLY believed that God
SET the universe in motion
and then
Disappeared

having no effect on events or human affairs after he had sown his Eternal Semen.

The original absentee father.

Good luck with the muck, "he" in effect said.

Colson presents a fairy tale version of both God and Newton's conception of God.

Newton is a Genius. Colson is a duplicitous idiot. Need we say more.?????

Henry

MARK eaton is a doll who doesn't know what he is talking about.

"science has become a religion of its own" has become an unthinking mantra of the defenders of the faith.

but it is nonsense.

religion is a belief system that is based on accepting supernatural/superstitious propositions based on NO evidence at all, with faith (ie with no skepticism or intelligencez)

Science is a process based on only accepting the truth of rigorously tested hypotheses, and even then only accepting them until a more comprehensive explanatory system that comports with the evidence is developed.

It is ignorant to say "science is just another religion." and meaningless
but i love you mark

The assorted responses here demonstrate why science and faith do not get along. As most of you declare (without declaring it) science has become a religion of its own. We should classify it as such and then restrict its freedoms as you are attempting to restrict our religious ones.

Tonio,

"I'm not sure if Colson simply doesn't understand science, if he's deliberately distorting science to create a straw man, or both."

I'm thinking both.

That was me with the anonymous post at 11:08 a.m.

"All science proceeds on certain faith presuppositions. In the case of the sociobiologist, that presupposition is materialism, that nature alone explains existence."

I'm not sure if Colson simply doesn't understand science, if he's deliberately distorting science to create a straw man, or both. Science is silent on meaning and purpose for life, and that's the way it should be. I do not understand why Colson and many other believers see that silence as a fault or a defect. Meaning and purpose are topics for philosophy, while the origin of life is a topic for science.

In my experience, the most emblematic characteristic of religionists is this: Bad Faith.

We see it in Chuck's deliberate misrepresentation of history and science, as well as in his attempt to spin Wilson's recognition of the benefits of cooperation with religionists on environmental issues. Instead of an honest debate of ideas, it's always lies, deception, misrepresenation and ad hominem attacks. Presented with an air of smug self-satisfaction and moral superiority. It's infuriating. It's exasperating. It's utterly discouraging.

And all from a group that claims to be the only one with the moral and ethical foundation, namely a set of commandments, half of which are vile religious edicts (well, four of ten anyway).

Yes, we all have to get along on this shared planet. Yes, there's a need for cooperation when it comes to shared goals that require a united front to achieve. But it doesn't legitimize any aspect of religionist belief. It is really no different from the adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Did the U.S. embrace communism during World War II when it fought Nazism along with the Soviets? No. Did the U.S. embrase Islamism when it armed the Mujahadin against the Soviets? No.

Honesty is at the core of ethics and morality. Religion cultivates dishonesty, since dishonesty is the only it can survive in the marketplace of ideas. Religion is a moral corrosive. We see it in Chuck. Right here. Right now. In Chuck it may be smooth and subtle, but that makes it all the more insidious.

Actually Chuck it's disgusting the way you spin religion's well documented opposition to science and rational discourse of any kind.It was violently opposed,in a very literal sense.People were killed for it.
Still the politician vis-a-vis the truth,right Chuck? How can you write crap like that and expect to be taken seriously?

Yeah Madlove;
can't beat that word truth.
Anyone looking for truth sure aint gonna find it in religion.
Religion hijacked that word long ago by calling their delusion the truth all the time,till everyone
believed it. The Holy truth,the Gospel truth.It's God's truth!I swear on the Bible it's the truth.
Anyone seriously looking for the truth about life,existence and the cosmos,would be wiser to read Carl Sagan,or Bertrand Russell or many of the other brilliant seekers of the truth.

No religion higher than truth!

EO Wilson is a gentleman.

and of course, it makes sense to encourage southern baptists and other supernatural worshippers to be active in attempting to preserve the earth

though the Southern Baptists believe that Jesus will come in the next 50 years and turn it into a rubble of fire and brimstone in any case.

Wilson is a polite man. I am in the business of speaking the truth.

Colson is a manipulative inveterate liar. He implies that Wilson has "repented" and returned to the fold of superstitious baptists who represent everything that Wilson, as a rational and humane man, has rejected.

I hope that tribes who still believe in sacrificing virgins will also join us in saving the earth.

Andrea: point taken. I suppose I was following my own advice and just letting him have his personal fun from his faith perspective. ;-)

Chuck, I'm so glad that you took the word 'alliance' to mean that scientists need to come back to religion, instead of actually meeting half-way.

"History, as well as common sense, tells us that there should be a healthy respect between science and faith."

No, it really doesn't. How many scientists did Christianity kill off or place under house arrest for proposing ideas (with facts behind them) that went against Church teachings? How far back in medical knowledge was humanity set back during the Dark Ages, when instead of being able to use medicine or actually explore how the human body worked, people were forbidden from using much beyond prayer to heal themselves from diseases?

"The scientific method was after all developed by Christians in the reformation era who denied the Aristotelian presupposition that the universe is infinite and therefore all reasoning must be deductive. They argued instead that since this is God’s creation, every area is open to exploration."

Okay, now you're just kidding me, right? The Church was really the one that cut off people from exploring the world in the first place. Opening it back up again doesn't make religion great. Every area was open to exploration before Christianity came about. While the knowledge might have been limited before Christianity, I do wonder how much further ahead we'd be right now if we hadn't been limited in scientific exploration under the Church.

"Many scientists, like Francis Collins, have found complete compatibility between science and religion. I am sure Collins and every other Christian will welcome Edmond Wilson’s proposal—a long sought-after truce in the struggles between naturalism and theism."

I agree. However, I reject you idea that this truce will be one-sided, with scientists embracing religion, but not the other way around. Religions , I feel, would be much better off if they accepted more science than they do now. How many policies in America do we have now that go against what the best science can tell us because it goes against religious principles?

Joet,

The disagreement with Chuck on this one is not because he agrees that the two different world views can come together for the environment. It stems from his assumption that the scientific world would be conceeding, and that by Wilson proposing the joint venture he is returning to the "flock." That takes some arrogance on Chuck's part.

Let's not attack Mr. Colson this time at least. I advocate that the faithful and the non can play together very nicely indeed, as long as each accepts that the other's fundamental premise (supernatural "facts" are admissible or they are not) is neither subject to attack, nor is to be asserted as the end of a conversation. I submit that almost no dialogue has to founder on that rule before incredible common ground can be found if both parties are careful. Technically speaking, that would be because, as a matter of metaphysics, it is not possible for humans to know or prove the nature of ultimate reality, we can only hypothesize or not, for what it's worth, or believe or not depending on whether we have been inspired so. It is, to me, never necessary to invoke one's assumptions on the ultimate truth of reality to get through the day, or solve global warming, or anything else for that matter. I'm with you on this one, Chuck.

I think Religion and Science try to answer some of the same questions and there is an obvious clashing of interests that would benefit from cooperation.

Science has limitations based on the method of discovery it uses. It must use empirical facts to build theories in the texts that it publishes and those texts are tenitive because of the limitations of the facts available.

Religion has no such limits and is built upon the history of humanity covering and integrating into many institutions and modes of thought.

Certainly science has left many or most of the claims of the natural world in holy texts invalid.

I think Wilson is talking about Science, the institution and not science, the method of discovery.

Our panelist writes: "Could it be that Wilson, admittedly an extraordinary intellect, has had a second “conversion”? He has written that he left his own Baptist faith at the age of 15 and entered the “temple of science.” Perhaps he has come back."

E.O. Wilson writes (in the letter that is supposedly the topic of discussion): "Although I no longer belong to that faith, I am confident that if we met and spoke privately of our deepest beliefs, it would be in a spirit of mutual respect and good will."

E.O. Wilson continues: "I am a secular humanist. I think existence is what we make of it as individuals. There is no guarantee of life after death, and heaven and hell are what we create for ourselves, on this planet. There is no other home. Humanity originated here by evolution from lower forms over millions of years. And yes, I will speak plain, our ancestors were apelike animals."

It's pretty clear he has not 'come back' don't you think Mr. Colson? Did you even read this letter?

Leave it to a Christian to strive to find a hint of a 'second conversion' when there obviously is none and then spin it like there might be. Is this kind of blatant dishonesty indicative of the ethics that your Christian values impart?

Norrie,

I agree with you that the two shouldn't mesh. I understood the proposal as more of a "hey, quit dicking around with the environment or you'll kill us all."

This a thoroughly bad idea.

Science is science, self-contained, and having no necessary or even relevant connection to religion.

The Dalai Lama had it right when he said that if science disproved ideas that have long been part of traditional Buddhist thinking, those ideas must be discarded and the scientific ideas adopted.

A supposed alliance of science and religion is only an attempt by religion to get support and an appearance of backing from science, its natural enemy.

Why should science show an attitude of "respect" toward religion, the anti-science?