A friend writes to comment on Atkins’s “smarmy condescension.” Indeed. In an age when serious scientists wonder whether the universe itself is conscious—because they cannot otherwise account for intelligence in nature— it’s not clear what smarmy condescension would achieve.
In 2012, Italian theoretical biologist Marcello Barbieri resigned as editor of the journal Biosemiotics because he felt that research in this area had become unscientific.
Can you imagine that years ago? But the fact is, materialists are out of ideas about consciousness and don’t know where to go.
It will be interesting indeed if the legacy of the thought traditions that provided a basis for science in the western world ended up being carried on mainly by devout Christians. While the official science world continues to mires and beclown itself in a war on objectivity.
Thompson’s point is applicable beyond Buddhism. “Theistic” evolutionists, for example, start with the premise that God wouldn’t “create” anything. That is really a message about God, not about nature, and it is bound to be a church-closer.
Siegel makes an interesting comparison with, say, Sabine Hossenfelder. He does great graphics but to say that he is not a deep thinker is to shower him with imprudent praise. By contrast, we go on listening to Hossenfelder with great interest, whether the graphics are good or not.
Thomas Kidd: To cite just one, sociologist Robert Woodberry showed in a landmark 2012 article that Christian missionaries were responsible for much of the global spread of cultural values such as “religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, and colonial reforms” from Latin America to East Asia.
McLeish: Much of ‘postmodern’ philosophical thinking and its antecedents through the 20th century appear at best to have no contact with science at all, and at worst to strike at the very root-assumptions on which natural science is built, such as the existence of a real world, and the human ability to speak representationally of it.
In reality, it is mixed. For example, consider eugenics. The Catholic Church always opposed that dreadful scourge of people armed with strong opinions passing laws compelling some of their neighbors to be sterilized. When they did so, these eugenicists were acting explicitly as the priests of science. That was their idea of a vocation and Protestant churches largely supported it.
If you believe that we evolved randomly and that the world has always been governed by Darwinian survival after that, you would only give if you felt like it. The “giving gene”? The “evolutionary psychology of giving?” Sure. That’ll work.
As with the Dead Sea Scrolls, when they did decipher it, using AI, they found it was the same Scriptural texts as elsewhere. Which reinforces the fact that ancient peoples were not in the habit of simply rewriting the Scriptures now and then according to taste.
The odd thing is that one part of the Templeton group is also funding things that should interest Jerry, for example the quest for an explanation of consciousness.
Did we mention? Darwinism’s over. People who make their living off it better think of some other way to seem smart.
A reviewer attacking Michael Flannery, author of a book on Darwin’s co-theorist Wallace re his Discovery Institute ties, actually wrote a book with a serious racist in 2003. Of course, rules Darwinists dream up never apply to themselves.
Boghossian: In Culture War 2.0, correspondence theories of truth aren’t just dead: truth itself is inaccessible to people who do not possess the right identity characteristics.