Skip to main content

Metaphysical claims

Vomit the Lukewarm has a short-ish post up about the relationship between biology (evolution) and religion. He concludes:
Natural theology exists independently of biology and natural history, just like calculus and basketweaving and Ptolemaic Astronomy and Grammar and your feelings about who should have won the Superbowl IX. If you want to affirm or deny a metaphysical claim, YOU NEED METAPHYSICS!
Why does this issue get mixed up so much? I dunno, but I have a pet theory. Liberalism and Fundamentalism are related. They share a common assumption that gained rapidly in acceptance starting roughly from the 1800s, namely that all of the Bible is to be read literally and can therefore be put to the test of the physical sciences. Now, the historical bits can be tested archaeologically and as far as I am aware, they have never been found wanting. But allegory and metaphor, wisdom and intuition - they are not like that. This could be called a category error. The Liberal reads all of the Bible as history, looks around, sees a lack of proof and concludes the Bible to be of little worth. If he's generous he might say it's interesting. The Fundamentalist also reads it literally and contorts his view of the world to conform to his assumption. The category error appears to me, as a Catholic, to stem from the doctrine of sola scriptura, which seems to downplay our ability to reason. The Fundamentalist embraces this; the Liberal rejects it. (I'm open to hearing commentary on this) In a strange way they need each other. The Fundamentalist needs an "example" of what happens when "the fundamentals" are questioned and the Liberal needs a bogeyman to represent what he has rejected as well. He'd rather take questions from the Fundamentalist than from someone holding the more nuanced and reasonable position of traditional religion. Pointing to the fundamentalist opposition to Darwin, for example, allows him to try and stuff all religion (i.e. opposition to his planning and his material power) into a box and dismiss it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi