Adventus

"The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is, in the words of the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe, that if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you."--Terry Eagleton

"It is impossible for me to say in my book one word about all that music has meant in my life. How then can I hope to be understood?--Ludwig Wittgenstein

“The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice."--Bryan Stevenson

Monday, July 14, 2014

You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!


It's an otherwise busy week in which I won't get much done, so I might as well let this go; it may be the last thing I post for a week, and in part it's inspired by this post at Thought Criminal, if only because the worship of science one sees on the intertubes is a truly appalling thing.

The latest consideration at Salon is whether Nietzsche predicted the correct cosmological theory (although I think the Father of the Ubermensch is just click bait in the headline).   I won't even comment on how much Western science is a construct of a certain culture with normative values that aren't necessarily handed down from Nature anymore than Moses got the law verbatim from the hand of God on Sinai (so it's no surprise the Big Bang Theory sounds vaguely Christian, or the alternative model is distinctly Hindu).  Indeed, the very idea that science is not a pure construct of truth akin to the gospel according to fundamentalists has prompted some really ludicrous comments, viz:

When involved in a discussion of cutting-edge astrophysics, introducing Hindu or Buddhist cosmologies makes as much sense as introducing Creationism when discussing evolution.  It isn't science, so it belongs elsewhere. 

Go wherever you want with that, but my first thought was that science is heilege, holy, and so must remain pure and apart from anything that is not science, such as philosophy (don't tell this commenter that science IS a philosophy, he'll burn you at the stake as a heretic!) or religion.  The latter clearly have no place in the discussion of the holy of holies.  It shouldn't even be allowed on the grounds of the temple.

Seriously, these guys are as bad as the fundamentalists they caricature.

5 Comments:

Blogger jim, some guy in iowa said...

it amuses me, in a sort of dark way, that the scientific and religious fundamentalists both make a point out of leaving the messy human beings out of their equations- and then blaming those same messy human beings when those equations don't quite work out as predicted. we would all do better to be more consistently aware of our own potentials for being wrong- but it seems we lose that awareness in inverse proportion to our certainty

5:44 PM  
Blogger Rmj said...

What jim said.

6:22 PM  
Blogger alberich said...

When involved in a discussion of cutting-edge astrophysics, introducing Hindu or Buddhist cosmologies makes as much sense as introducing Creationism when discussing evolution. It isn't science, so it belongs elsewhere.

Murray Gell-Mann would beg to differ

6:42 PM  
Blogger Rmj said...

thank you, aberich

8:38 PM  
Blogger JCF said...

Thou shalt not have syncretisms, you apostates to All-Holy BigScience!

Anyone remember "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"? It dealt w/ Eastern (particularly Taoist) concepts in astrophysics ~40 years ago! [The Dawkins crowd would blow that up, just like the Taliban did to the Bahmiyan Buddhas... :-( ]

4:40 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home