From Robert Arvay at American Thinker:
Many scientists no longer regard us as having any special place. We are no longer regarded as having a spiritual dimension, but only a physical one. We are seen to be products of a cold, uncaring universe, indeed, not even a product, but only a mere byproduct, an accident, an unlikely outcome of events that had no plan, no purpose, no meaning.
Indeed. Nearly 50% Americans now think humans are not special.
The inevitable extension of this purely physical view of humanity is technological barbarism. If we are mere atoms, biological machines, then by what right can we expect to be treated as anything more than that? Indeed, there would be no rights at all, but only force.
Of course, such dismal interpretations of science are not at all scientific, but only ideological. Most people, however, confronted with the scientific arguments for physics devoid of spirit, find themselves ill equipped to counter those arguments. All too many people have subscribed to the material paradigm, and have come to regard religious faith as mere superstition at best, as harmful at worst. More.
It finds its way into government, for example into the scientism displayed in recent statements by Canada’s governor general, former astronaut Julie Payette, making clear that a random origin for humans is the “science” view. And the Prime Minister praised her.
Part of what is wrong with scientism, as Payette brilliantly exhibited, is that science is presented to the public as a totem, not to be critically examined as most enterprises are.
The actual record is, of course, mixed. There was the human genome map but then there was also eugenics.
The best way to perpetuate the bad stuff is to make “science” a kind of totem. One cringes to hear people say, smugly, “I am a scientist.” Would those people wish to hear a list recited of all the frauds, perps, and villains who could properly say the same? Being a “scientist” has about the same status as being a “citizen”; it is a classification devoid of moral or intellectual significance, unless qualified by the very factors so many such persons wish to avoid.
Note: Sound travels. From Deborah Gyapong at The Catholic Register:
Speaking at the ninth annual Canadian Science Policy Convention Nov. 1, Payette dismissed divine intervention as a factor in evolution and lumped those who believe otherwise into the same category as climate deniers and horoscope readers.
…
Denyse O’Leary, a Catholic author who specializes in the intersection of faith and science, said “making fun of Canadians” who believe in divine intervention “is not a recipe for good government.”
“Payette seems to think that it is reasonable to believe that our amazingly fine-tuned universe and its known life forms arose from a random process,” said O’Leary. “Science does not require us to accept a random origin of highly complex life forms. The evidence suggests the opposite.”
Elia pointed to the many universities in the western world founded as Catholic institutions where faith and reason are not opposed.
“Some of the greatest scientists responsible for the many concepts and theories which enabled her to engage in space travel are Catholics,” he said. More.
Sound travels but not necessarily into closed ears. When unexpected changes in government happen, that is often a reason why.
Thanks for the tip, re Robert Array’s piece, to editor and journalist Ken Francis, author of The Little Book of God, Mind, Cosmos and Truth, via a road trip through the United States. Here he reflects on the absurdity of naturalism
See also: Astronaut Julie Payette did not KO God in the first round