#shanenaz2016

November 2016 - I and my pals cycled in The Galilee, Northern Israel, to raise money for Nazareth Hospital Paediatric Department. We raised over £50,000 but we could use more! Nazareth is the largest Arab town in Israel; the people are lovely, and the kids are awesome. Nazareth also treats kids in the West Bank of Palestine who have very limited access to healthcare. They need your help! Go to my sponsorship page to find out more and see what you can do! Maybe even join us in 2017..?
http://justgiving.com/shanenaz2016

10 October 2010

Science and Religion are incompatible

At least Jerry Coyne seems to think so.

And I agree.

I will be returning very shortly to voice some thoughts about my much-respected former mentor's setting up of an "Intelligent Design" centre in Glasgow. Why, Norman, why? Can't we sit down and I can explain to you where you are wrong? Why this silliness?

7 comments:

  1. hi!This was a really terrific post!
    I come from milan, I was luck to approach your blog in digg
    Also I get much in your blog really thanks very much i will come later

    ReplyDelete
  2. At least Jerry Coyne seems to think so.?

    And I agree.

    and a lot of scientists profoundly disagree with Coyne:

    http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm

    The tragedy of Coyne's argument is the way in which it seeks to enlist science in a frankly philosophical crusade — a campaign to purge science of religionists in the name of doctrinal purity. That campaign will surely fail, but in so doing it may divert those of us who cherish science from a far more urgent task, especially in America today. That is the task of defending scientific rationalism from those who, in the name of religion would subvert it beyond all recognition. In that critical struggle, scientists who are also people of faith are critical allies, and we would do well not to turn those "Ardent Theists" away.

    I will be returning very shortly to voice some thoughts about my much-respected former mentor's setting up of an "Intelligent Design" centre in Glasgow. Why, Norman, why? Can't we sit down and I can explain to you where you are wrong? (a)Why this silliness?

    I would suggest Shane, that perhaps it is because of stataements by Coyne that you've just linked to,which claims in no uncertain terms that christians (or indeed, people of any faith) cannot be scientists.

    Science takes no postion on the suupernatuaral. I've been told that often enough by Atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Peter,
    But Coyne is not arguing that Christians cannot be scientists; obviously they can. The problem is that some people make ludicrous claims for religion, in terms of what it can tell us about the *world*. when religions claim something as "true", they step outside their competence and need slapped down. Annoying "people of faith" is less important than adopting a proper respect for reality. In reality a lot of religious people are waking up to that and altering their religious outlook.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whoa!

    If you're just assuming that science can give an account of ethics or meaning, and religion can't, then it could be argued that Coyne's not respecting reality.

    These are controversial areas, and he's pretending - yes, pretending that the issue has been settled.

    They're not. Case closed.
    (-;

    ReplyDelete
  5. Never fear...the C.A.D. is developing nicely...

    I think I've prepared the ground for it's reception.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Graham,
    Science does not give an account of ethics or morality - that would be a naturalistic fallacy, and Coyne is not saying that. Science does, however, inform ethics & morality in a much better way than mere mumbo jumbo.
    Religion (i.e. "mere mumbo jumbo") cannot give an account of ethics or morality either, despite the delusional claims to the contrary, because religion is based on the whim of dipsticks, and imposes an authoritative structure of dogma that is both ridiculous and unacceptable.

    If you want to talk ethics and morality, these can only ever make sense from a humanistic perspective.

    I would suggest :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh - and the CAD - excellent! (For those who have just joined us, the CAD is the "Center[sic] for Apophatic Design"[sic], where the sics[sic] are an integral part of the apophatuosity. The only thing you can say about the Baby Jebus under Apophattism is nothing at all, and you can't even say that, because that would be a breach of Apophacy.

    Alrightee?

    ReplyDelete