Jack Ditch (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} revjack) wrote,@ 2007-02-19 11:15:00 |
|
I HEART FATHER CHRIS
I was just flipping through some of my old posts about evolution last night, reliving the frustrating nightmare of trying to talk to anti-creationists; then today I stumble onto this post from Father Chris, leaving me with the warm comforting sensation that someone else is out there presenting my views much more eloquently than I ever could, so I can just kick back and relax and link to them. :-D
http://chris.tessone.net/2007/02/19/the-a
Quoting Chris [
It's interesting to see how the roles of church and natural philosophy/science have shifted over the years. In the medieval church, one believed that God had particular attributes primarily because the hierarchy told one God had those attributes. Nowadays, the church's teaching authority plays some role in that, but we also put significant emphasis on experience of God. With science, on the other hand, we are increasingly moving in a direction where only specialists need concern themselves with replicating and validating results — the hoi polloi can simply accept these results on faith, because canonical science is so good at what it does.
Except there's plenty of evidence canonical science isn't quite that good.
...
I'm disappointed by the contempt in which many people hold skeptical religious conservatives. Many of those who hold science in high esteem are somewhat more informed, but to suggest that they have themselves done the work to validate, for instance, the theory of evolution and are not accepting these results on faith in the integrity of science is beyond disingenuous. Skeptics of evolution may have the bad luck of being on the wrong side of the data, but the problem lies in the authority they choose to accept — it doesn't make them stupid or fit for scorn. In fact, they are revealing a weakness in Western science that many on the other side have a hard time seeing.
] Well said, Father Chris.
I was just flipping through some of my old posts about evolution last night, reliving the frustrating nightmare of trying to talk to anti-creationists; then today I stumble onto this post from Father Chris, leaving me with the warm comforting sensation that someone else is out there presenting my views much more eloquently than I ever could, so I can just kick back and relax and link to them. :-D
http://chris.tessone.net/2007/02/19/the-a
Quoting Chris [
It's interesting to see how the roles of church and natural philosophy/science have shifted over the years. In the medieval church, one believed that God had particular attributes primarily because the hierarchy told one God had those attributes. Nowadays, the church's teaching authority plays some role in that, but we also put significant emphasis on experience of God. With science, on the other hand, we are increasingly moving in a direction where only specialists need concern themselves with replicating and validating results — the hoi polloi can simply accept these results on faith, because canonical science is so good at what it does.
Except there's plenty of evidence canonical science isn't quite that good.
...
I'm disappointed by the contempt in which many people hold skeptical religious conservatives. Many of those who hold science in high esteem are somewhat more informed, but to suggest that they have themselves done the work to validate, for instance, the theory of evolution and are not accepting these results on faith in the integrity of science is beyond disingenuous. Skeptics of evolution may have the bad luck of being on the wrong side of the data, but the problem lies in the authority they choose to accept — it doesn't make them stupid or fit for scorn. In fact, they are revealing a weakness in Western science that many on the other side have a hard time seeing.
] Well said, Father Chris.
