This Week in Religion and Science
It’s time for an other episode of our popular series on what’s up withe science and religion in the news. BT has been somewhat inactive of late, but I’ll do my best to keep this little column moderately up to date. So in no particular order…
To be a bit self serving I’ll start with the Week of Science Blogging where a disparate group of bloggers (myself included) all committed to blog only about science for a week. Alas time got the best of me and I quickly feel behind. But my own posts were on three conceptions of mechanics, the problem of scientific entities, underdetermination, scientific realism and then pragmatism and scientific realism. It was a great time and I’m still working through all the entries others submitted. So check a few out and enjoy learning a bit of science.
Not really related to religion, but I really ought plug Hardy’s, A Mathematician’s Apology which is available as a free e-book. One of my math classes at BYU required reading this and I’m glad I did. It’s kind of an autobiography but is a great way to get a feel for what is enjoyable in mathematics. If you’ve never read it you really should.
If you missed it Beliefnet had up a debate over religion between Sam Harris who has been writing about the “threat” of fundamentalist Christians and blogger and Time writer Andrew Sullivan. While politics has more to do with the debate than science, science does enter in. Although I truly wish they could have found someone better than Andrew Sullivan to debate. He’s not (IMO) been exactly favorable to many religions (our own included). It is an interesting debate though – although if you’ve read these kinds of debates before you’ll probably be able to make pretty good predictions of the points raised.
There was an interesting poll on American attitudes towards science. Sadly while Americans see scientists as prestigious most (75%) can’t name a living scientist. Relevance? I wonder of how much of the science/religion wars are purely out of ignorance.
Again not religious oriented but probably of interest to most, there’s a cheap safe drug that appears to kill most cancers. We’ll see how the next round of studies pan out. But this could be a huge breakthrough.
Postmodernism and science often are tied together – often with claims about religion. There were a few discussions along these lines. Bob McCue among others claims Mormonism is postmodern and attempts to use this to explain FARMS purported misuse and opposition to science. I disagreed obviously. The post is here at my blog. The biggest postmodern/science debate was the Sokal affair from a few years back. Things were much more complex than most let on. Those interested might find the blog DuckRabbit and their discussion of “what is objectivity” interesting.
For those still interested in the Nibley controversy the NYT article on repressed memories should be interesting reading.
Since debates about science and religion just aren’t really complete without at least one mention of ID, let me note that McCain wants to teach ID in school whereas Romney does not. LDS Science News also discussed Richard Sherlock’s essay on ID and Mormonism that many of us were dismayed to find published by FARMs. (here and here)
Other than that though there really wasn’t a lot of science news directly tied to Mormonism.
Mormondom basically forgot about the 198th anniversary Charles Darwin’s birth. DMI Dave notes that the sectarian world celebrated Evolution Sunday earlier this week. Unfortunately, however, Dave again missapplies the oft-quoted 1931 First Presidency snippet which doesn’t refer to Darwin or evolution at all, but simply warns against allowing science to modify faith.
Comment by R. Gary — February 17, 2007 @ 7:14 am
Mr. Goble,
I agree Andrew Sullivan isn’t doing a stellar job in his debate with Sam Harris, but then wouldn’t it be hard for any theologian to debate Sam Harris. Harris insists on debating about things which can be proved. That would put all theology outside the scope of any meaningful debate. It personally makes me sad to see an intelligent person struggling to rationalize the irrational. We may disagree about what is irrational, but it is something like art, indefinable in its essentials, but one knows it when one sees it.
It is my opinion – uninformed of course – that theologians can and should only debate with philosophers and other theologians. For a theologian to debate with a scientist, or even a mathematician, (no insult intended- mathematicians are to me the quintessential mysterious people) is the debaters version of an oxymoron.
Comment by Katonah — February 17, 2007 @ 8:00 am
Katonah, it seems to me that a philosopher would know exactly the tactics Harris would take and why they are flawed.
Gary, I should have mentioned Darwin’s birthday. It was probably at least as relevant as some of the things I did mention. Good catch.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 17, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
America and it’s institutions serve the greater good of society when they all stick to doing what it is they do best. To have a theologian like Pat Robertson try to take to task a Stephen Hawking over the realities of the physical universe is ludricous and not worthy of discussion.
The pilgrims landed here centuries ago and yet their witch burning, scarlet letter climate still permeates and strangles free and informed scientific thought. Fast forward to today and our modern day witches are the very lettered and academic elite who find themselved ducking for cover whenever they seek to push the scientific and natural world envelope.
The fact that Darwin is dismissed even today is depressing commentary on how far we really haven’t gone and how the self righteous believing public continues to bully and intimidate bona fide scientific realities.
Churches and Universities should not be adversaries with the government and politics caught in the middle of deciding what special interests to give credence to and at what cost to the secular and believing tax paying public.
It gets back to the basic principles of seperation of Church and State.
Comment by David L. — February 17, 2007 @ 9:41 pm