But is there a common ground to be found?
Eli Horowitz of Rust Belt Philosophy finds the Templeton Foundation and its everlasting questions irksome. The World Science Festival has its Science ‘N’ Faith panel, as we know, which asks rilly deep questions:
For all their historical tensions, scientists and religious scholars from a wide variety of faiths ponder many similar questions—how did the universe begin? How might it end? What is the origin of matter, energy, and life?
Ooh yeah, how, how? Eli adds a few more deep questions.
How many years can some people exist before they’re allowed to be free? Who put the “bop” in the “bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop”? Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways? What’s eating Gilbert Grape? Who framed Roger Rabbit?
Ooh yeah, who, what, how? I bet Chad Orzel would know.
Meanwhile – Josh Rosenau’s claim, in his post on why there shouldn’t be any atheist scientists on the panel, tells us what the panel will be about:
The premise of a panel on “the relationship between science and faith” is, after all, that there is a relationship…The whole point Affirmative Atheists are making is that there is no dialogue to be had. Which means that the panel would descend into a metaconversation about whether there should even be conversations like the one they were supposed to be having.
But Josh’s description doesn’t match the description given by the World Science Festival itself:
The modes of inquiry and standards for judging progress are, to be sure, very different. But is there a common ground to be found? ABC News’ Bill Blakemore moderates a panel that includes evolutionary geneticist Francisco Ayala, astrobiologist Paul Davies, Biblical scholar Elaine Pagels and Buddhist scholar Thupten Jinpa. These leading thinkers who come at these issues from a range of perspectives will address the evolving relationship between science and faith.
The question mark after the word ‘found’ seems to indicate that the panel has not been given orders to start from the certainty that there is a common ground to be found, but rather to discuss whether there is or not; that being the case, it is entirely unobvious that an atheist would send the discussion careening off into obsesso-crazy land, as Josh claims.
I think you miss the real point here, Ophelia. What the Templetons have done is create a panel, so one-sided, that it makes the average fox news discussion actually appear ‘fair and balanced’ – thus proving miracles can occur! Damn you Templetons! Damn you all to Hell!
So those are the big questions? Nice to finally get them in writing. Now, if I’m not very wrong, don’t physicists work pretty hard to wrench answers to those from the Cosmic Microwave Background? And ” religious scholars” do what? Gaze at their navels?
Is it just me or did there really used to be the days when Josh and others would come over to their critics’ blogs and actually try to defend their views? Isn’t it unfortunate that that doesn’t seem to happen anymore?
‘how did the universe begin? How might it end? What is the origin of matter, energy, and life?’
If theists just stuck to questions like this they’d be wrong, but largely harmless. Unfortunately ‘What is the origin of matter, energy, and life?’ rapidly segues into ‘…and how best should we abase ourselves before this Origin that it will not visit upon us eternal damnation’ and ‘Should we appease this Devine Origin by killing homosexuals, adultresses and apostates?’
No matter how theists might try to disguise religion as a form of philosophical enquiry it is only ever a series of power relationships propped up by fairytales.
Hm. I don’t think Josh does reply on other people’s blogs much – I’m not sure he ever has.
Mind you, there are two or three blogs where I don’t reply either, because they’re so lost in obscene raving that there’s no point, but I flatter myself that I’m not quite that off the charts. Josh could just be conserving his time and energy though – preferring to post at his place rather than other people’s.
Josh has a new post up, admitting he misunderstood Ophelia and others.
Sadly he makes a number of stupid mistakes in doing so.
Do you end up an accomodationist if you are an atheist with reading comprehension issues, or does being an accomodationist mean you develop such issues ?
I think we do not have a sample large enough to make a judgment!
:- )