03.08.10
More junk accomodationism from Ruse?
New Ruse book on science/religion
In Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science, Michael Ruse offers a new analysis of the often troubled relationship between science and religion. Arguing against both extremes – in one corner, the New Atheists; in the other, the Creationists and their offspring the Intelligent Designers – he asserts that science is undoubtedly the highest and most fruitful source of human inquiry. Yet, by its very nature and its deep reliance on metaphor, science restricts itself and is unable to answer basic, significant, and potent questions about the meaning of the universe and humankind’s place within it: Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the ultimate source and foundation of morality? What is the nature of consciousness? What is the meaning of it all? Ruse shows that one can legitimately be a skeptic about all of these questions, and yet why it is open for a Christian, or member of any faith, to offer answers. Scientists, he concludes, should be proud of their achievements but modest about their scope. Christians should be confident of their mission but respectful of the successes of science.
I already commented today on Ruse’s attack on Fodor and PP’s What Darwin Got Wrong, and in the process discovered he is out with a new book. I haven’t read it yet, but I can predict the problem it will have.
First, after a while you get tired of this regime. The same old tired books by the same old gang of writers, Dawkins, the ID gang, Ruse, Dennett, Karen Armstrong, Hitchens, robert wright, etc, etc, etc,…
These writers are completely second-rate on religion (and I would also say, science) and yet produce book after book to the exclusion of anyone with any knowledge or insight.
I can easily predict what the problem will be with Ruse’s book, after reading his defense of straight Darwinism today. It is a disservice for these people to presume to speak on religion given their Darwinian assumptions. To preach the compatability of Darwinism and ?religion (? Christianity/monotheism is what is mean, of course, all other religions be damned) after critiquing even a moderate critique of natural selection leaves me wondering if Ruse is hopelessly confused, or simply deceptive.
Christianity is NOT compatible with Darwinian junk science on the evolution of ethics, just for starters. To pretend otherwise does a disservice to the debate over culture, science and religion.
I will comment again when I see the book.
But note again how the same old tired books appear over and over, recycled, by those the various establishments will allow as puppets of propaganda.
Craig L. Adams said,
March 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm
This is the first time I’ve stumbled onto this blog. Did you really mean to say that Dawkins and Dennett were *second-rate in science* (as implied by your parenthetical phrase)? On the other writers listed: yeah, I see your point.
Jason said,
March 11, 2010 at 8:07 am
Craig,
I suggest you look up how many scientific papers with original data were published by Dawkins in the past 40 years. You’ll be very disappointed.
jason
Darwiniana » Archive winners this week said,
March 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm
[...] Comments James on More junk accomodationism from Ruse?Jason on More junk accomodationism from Ruse?Jim Buck on What do you mean, [...]
nemo said,
March 11, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I meant that Dawkins/Dennett are second-rate on the question of religion, in the way they refuse to even study the history of the subject.
Darwiniana said,
March 11, 2010 at 3:40 pm
[...] Comment on Ruse post: Dawkins James said, [...]