tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8100929.post6334990496606840769..comments2023-10-24T20:10:37.316+08:00Comments on The Book of Shadow: Science As Dictatorship?shadowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13822100633711347312noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8100929.post-89103981268421091802007-05-31T21:01:00.000+08:002007-05-31T21:01:00.000+08:00Shadow:If as T.S. Eliot's Becket says, "humankind ...Shadow:<BR/><I>If as T.S. Eliot's Becket says, "humankind cannot bear very much reality", what is the reality that humans find intolerable? The bright light of science on the world that causes outdated superstitious religions to find solace by sticking their head in the sand? Or our fearful lack of understanding of and control over the sheer vastness and complexity of the universe that drives us to the blind worship of science?<BR/><BR/>How much have we mindlessly bought into the spin about the Enlightenment!, the Dawn of Knowledge!, the Age of Reason!, the Autonomy of Humankind!, the Epitome of True Knowledge!, the Eschatology of the Test-tube!?<BR/><BR/>How much are scientific theories exact statements of fact and how much are they short stories about existing facts, romantic explanations of natural phenomena? <BR/><BR/>How blinkered in explication are their propositions, say, of the wave-particle duality of light?<BR/>What is the basis, for example, for the zeitgeist flavour of this decade: determinism? <BR/><BR/>How valid is the fatalism that who we are has already been determined by nature and nurture, our genes and our early environment?Observer effect and Heisenberg uncertainty principle aside, how objective are researchers? How much are their interpretations influenced by existing presuppositions and political agenda?<BR/><BR/>How far the purported omnicompetence of science? How valid the excursions of science to areas such as value, morality and meaning? <BR/><BR/>Does science really undermine the theories of value, morality and meaning? If science cannot measure value, morality or meaning, do they not exist? If ears do not detect colour, do colours not exist?</I><BR/><BR/>All extremely reasonble and apposite questions, I say, Shadow (although in addition to the wave-particle duality of light you could have added matter as well).<BR/><BR/>And then suppose that we are just waiting for the Doors of Perception to be clensed before we can build the New Jerusalem where 'all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well when the tongues of the flame are infolded and the fire and the rose are one.'<BR/><BR/>But then suppose also that it's the dictatorship of science that's still in the way people seeing everything as infinite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8100929.post-60950928184869572072007-05-31T12:20:00.000+08:002007-05-31T12:20:00.000+08:00Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist philosopher, ...Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist philosopher, was once asked what he would say to God if after dying he found himself standing in judgement before God and asked to give an account of his life. Bertrand quipped that he would say, "I should reproach him for not giving us enough evidence." <BR/><BR/>The quote from Romans doesn't allow this excuse to be used.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8100929.post-14920712717134151152007-05-31T11:17:00.000+08:002007-05-31T11:17:00.000+08:00i agree with what some one says of dawkins:Interes...i agree with what some one says of dawkins:Interestingly, it is the sheer blindness of Dawkins own thinking that beggars belief, rather than the poorly charicatured views of Christians that he attempts to explain and challenge. While he waxes lyrical about the imporance of evidence based thinking, good scholarship and critical thinking skills, he never quite manages to be convincing, because he never holds his magnifying glass over his own views. Tellingly, he is the best example that we have of someone who will not respond to evidence and scholarship, who will not engage properly with his critics. Richard Dawkins is his own enemy. He is the strongest example of what he loves to hate. The mirage of unthinking evangelical Christians, are only projections from his own mind. He himself, projects them in just the same way that he argues that they project their religious beliefs. This might sound silly, but he's actually very serious. So serious that its probably true to say that if religion is a strict adherence to a system of transformation, then Richard Dawkins is the most religious man in the World, who also happens to be his very own nemesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com