06.16.09
More on Wolin and the faith/reason debates
James said,
June 16, 2009 at 5:55 pm ·
I think the main problem is that few people can trace the historical roots of their beliefs and end up undermining the very thing that they champion. Contemporary Darwinian secular humanists (self-styled as “freethinkers”) fail to see that the theory is a rather contrived attempt to extend the successes of the Newtonian framework to all of the aspects of reality (by the way, I find it curious that current proponents of scientism proclaim Darwin as the most original scientific thinker in history when NS is really Newton’s bastard child). Despite the huge upheavals in physics in the 20th century, these “secularists” are unwittingly trying to complete the project to make 19th century physics the defining standard of “secularism” (I’m guessing it is because relativity and QM aren’t easily understood and it is difficult to extract cultural narratives from them that can do battle with religious ideas).good points.
As you have pointed out, the wealth of resources produced by figures such as Kant to put science in its proper place and save scientists from themselves has either been forgotten or ignored because the powers that be want to maintain control of the public sphere. Ironically, Kant produced this discourse in an effort to save science.
Kant is much better for scientists than Hegel, whose perspectives more conservative and traditionalist even as they are simultaneously adept at defending secularism in a very original way.
In any case, Kant, we forget, was very critical of institutional religion, and rejected the conventional beliefs in divinity that dominate religious churches.
Darwiniana » Log: some posts from last week said,
June 17, 2009 at 4:24 pm
[...] Comments Darwiniana » More on Wolin and the faith/reason debates on Wolin enters the reason/faith frayJames on Wolin enters the reason/faith frayDarwiniana » [...]