A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion

_{William Dembski

November 1, 2005

Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Pam Winnick’s new book, A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion, is out in stores. It provides a nice counterblast to Chris Mooney’s diatribe about the Republican/conservative hijacking of science.

Comments

"Intelligent agency may reliably be distinguished from material agency in a limited subset of phenomena." It follows that intelligence is not reducible to matter, and hence matter is not all that exists.jaredl_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

http://www.katu.com/news/images/story2005/050202tasters_choice.jpgBombadill_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Sorry, my comment was directed at Taster's Choice, not Jaredl.Bombadill_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Testischoice, two tasks for you: 1. define "matter" 2. Define "define"MGD_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Jaredl, You can start with the human conscious with all of it's metaphysical realities. Unless you want to suggest that the physical/material somehow magically produced that which is immaterial and metaphysical. If you do suggest that, then you have quite a few obstacles to overcome: altruism, first-person perspective, etc...Bombadill_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

... I am well aware of the fact that #2 is a direct implication of #1. Thanks!jaredl_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Jaredl, Can you please point out how you would go about proving that: a. Matter is not all there is. b. Intelligence is not reducible to just matter.testerschoice_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

The false premises are: "Matter is all there is," and "Intelligence is reducible to matter."jaredl_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

"You astound me sometimes, Heddle." Actually DaveScot, yours is the astounding comment. Yes, the majority opinion in scientific circles is one of philosophical naturalism, which generally takes a position somewhere between patronizing and hostile vis a vis spiritual/religious world views and the people who hold them. There are many aspects of this prevailing world view that I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like, and that I disagree with--sometimes vehemently. And yes, there have been cases in which people have been abused in the name of "science" (the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment comes to mind). But these have been isolated cases, and universally condemned both by scientists and the culture as a whole when illuminated. For you to suggest that the broad brush of "Nazi scientists uncovering biological truths using live human subjects" applies to all of the modern scientific enterprise is riduculous.SteveB_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Follow on to previous: Also, I hasten to add that any theist that hasn't had such a radical change of nature will be just as bad as an atheist.PjB_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

I haven't read the book and probably won't since my reading list is already into 2007. However, I do have a couple of comments. First of all, anyone who thinks that atheists can't hurt anyone is woefully ignorant of history. I need give only one example. The mass murders in Soviet Russia under Stalin. How about two? The poverty and lack of freedoms of the Cubans under Castro? Human nature is the real problem in all cases of abuse of authority. If evil people possess political power, whether that power is in a religion or in a secular party, organization or civil entity, then those people will commit evil against others. I grow weary of hearing about this group or that group being the cause of all evil in society. Evil people are attracted to power and the opportunities of lavish abuse that goes with it. If that power is in a church, then evil people will be attracted to the power structures of the church. If that power is in a civil entity, then evil people will be attracted to the power structures of the government. Atheists in control will be no better than theists, unless they have a radical change of heart that only God can give.PjB_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Scientists in general need to be kept on a tight leash. Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there's no telling what they'll do in the name of scientific discovery. Christian scientists as well will do unspeakable, completely unChristlike things to animal subjects that just makes me want to put the heartless SOB's in a cage and do the same things to them so they can see how it feels. Christ, son of God or not, set an example we should all try to live by and he never caused any living thing any pain - all he did was help and heal.DaveScot_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Jaredl, You say: "There are many witnesses who can testify by virtue of their own firsthand experience that materialist philosophy is founded upon ontologically and epistemically false premises" Can you point out the false premises?testerschoice_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Only two reviewer comments I could find: This book shows how science has now become a religion of its own--an often fanatical one at that--furiously preaching atheism, punishing dissenters, dictating how and what to think, and subtly inserting its worldviews in everything from education to entertainment. -- A fascinating account of how medical science has abused human rights and acted as a major political force in this country. There's loads of gems here I never knew before--how racist the population-control movement was, the terrible things scientists used to do to living fetuses, the way they still abuse blacks and the poor in the developing world--all under the pretense of being so "liberal." I especially was shocked at California's Prop 71 to raise billions for stem-cell research. She shows what a fraud it was, how bad for the poor and exposes the clowns in Hollywood for their support. She does a great job showing how medical science raises expectations for cures, then never delivers--but they still make lots of money, It's really good. She's not sticking up for religion so much--at least not Christianity. It's more of a decency-ethics case.DaveScot_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Mr. Heddle claims "Science is not at war with religion, and even the most atheistic scientists, in their role as scientists, do nothing about which the religious need fear, at least not in the sense that uncovering scientific truth can damage Christianity." This claim is trivially true - that there are regularities in our environment certainly does not damage any known religious claims. To publish these regularities likewise has no religious significance. However, if applied materialistic (atheistic) philosophy is the sole source of valid knowledge, then war has indeed been declared, by the materialists - this is a religious war, and an ideological war, on both sides. If not, then there would be no issue over intelligent design. There are many witnesses who can testify by virtue of their own firsthand experience that materialist philosophy is founded upon ontologically and epistemically false premises. Not only that, but the data collected from our environment bespeak intelligent action once we adopt a simple and self-evident axiom: intelligent agency may reliably be distinguished from material agency in a limited subset of phenomena. This premise is a repudiation of materialism.jaredl_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

"Science is not at war with religion, and even the most atheistic scientists, in their role as scientists, do nothing about which the religious need fear, at least not in the sense that uncovering scientific truth can damage Christianity." Tell that to the victims of Nazi scientists uncovering biological truths using live human subjects. You astound me sometimes, Heddle.DaveScot_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

I am confused by the relevance of this book to Mooney's book. Mooney's book is about Republican's uses and attacks on science. From the title this book seems to pit science against religion. But unless you make the leap that religion is the same as Republican (which is dubious to me) i don't get it.JeffK_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

I don't know anything about the book, but I hate the title. It perpetuates the myth that science is warring against religion, as if God's creation could possibly be at war with the gospel. Science is not at war with religion, and even the most atheistic scientists, in their role as scientists, do nothing about which the religious need fear, at least not in the sense that uncovering scientific truth can damage Christianity. Along the same lines, we should welcome and not fear archeological research in the Holy Land. If the gist is that applied science is potentially harmful to mankind, then that is manifestly true. But that is not what the title has me expecting. I fear the "war" is the other way around--that is the aggressors are more often than not misguided Christians who view science as threatening rather than as it should be viewed: as part of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s general revelation. At the very least, for the title to make any sense, it should be Scientists' Crusade not Science's Crusade--although I would still disagree with it. But I'll read the book, just to find out what the author has to say.David Heddle_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

I've been waiting for this one for a while now, any good reviews out yet?vpr_{October 31, 2005
October
10
Oct
31
31
2005
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply