A few years back I had thyroid cancer- which was operated on, the right thyroid taken out, and I have a small scar which is fine by me because I am alive. This is a preface for:
I want to slap Norah Ephron every time I see her "I Feel Bad About My Neck" book. "Fuck you", I want to say, "your neck sags, it's not trying to kill you."
Monday, August 27, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Not actually a miracle, though it might look like one to some
So, Sam Harris has a letter in Nature.
The letter:
Scientists should unite against threat from religion
Sam Harris
Sir
It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism.
In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal.
Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion.
An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs".
But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."
At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.
There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.
The Link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/448864a.html
Now me:
Well, this is not meant to make anyone suddenly think there is a god, but I actually agree with Harris' letter here. In a science magazine or publication of any kind, SCIENCE needs to be foremost. Science arenas need to be bastions of rational thought, of evidence-gathering, not throwing up your hands and saying "God did it", which is the very antithesis of inquiry.
The question of whether science should investigate or comment of religion is a valid one, but I think it has been framed as being "don't question people's beliefs", rather than "what *is* belief and why" in most cases. A proper scientific investigation into the mechanical aspects of belief (what happens to your brain waves under the influence of religion, what actually caused the burning bush, the ins and outs of visions, etc) would be more than fair game. Where the intersection of science and religion gets dangerous (or deadly in some cases) is where it is said "Do Not Look". Kills science right there, and people actually do die of self-imposed ignorance. I agree with Harris that there has been too much willfull blindness.
Add to this- why is it that we so seldom hear about someone coming upon a sight of extreme beauty and being overwhelmed by the love of nature? Here:
When I lived in Utah I was surrounded by some rather unpleasant people (of many religious stripes, lest you think I'm about to go off on an anti-LDS tangent). But I was surrounded by some really beautiful scenery. This is where we keep the Purple Mountains Majesty, after all.
The Wasatch would almost glow at sunset, and the sun in the high desert would cast golden rays as it went down- if its rays hit me, my own skin would take on the hue of antique 18 carat and I would feel beautiful, too. These were times which brought me into a realization of my own existence in the universe as a whole- reminded me of the entirety of the solar system and our collective fate and history going back to the very first moment in time. Such times *included* me, included everyone, as part of this all, not as some specially created creatures here to do the bidding of some Other.
The beauty of which we are a part is so much better than a beauty over which we are supposedly given dominance. The potential for knowledge is so much wider than the fetters of various religions would have us realise. The more we know, the more we discover, the more we look, the easier that is to see.
The letter:
Scientists should unite against threat from religion
Sam Harris
Sir
It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism.
In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal.
Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion.
An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs".
But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."
At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.
There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.
The Link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/448864a.html
Now me:
Well, this is not meant to make anyone suddenly think there is a god, but I actually agree with Harris' letter here. In a science magazine or publication of any kind, SCIENCE needs to be foremost. Science arenas need to be bastions of rational thought, of evidence-gathering, not throwing up your hands and saying "God did it", which is the very antithesis of inquiry.
The question of whether science should investigate or comment of religion is a valid one, but I think it has been framed as being "don't question people's beliefs", rather than "what *is* belief and why" in most cases. A proper scientific investigation into the mechanical aspects of belief (what happens to your brain waves under the influence of religion, what actually caused the burning bush, the ins and outs of visions, etc) would be more than fair game. Where the intersection of science and religion gets dangerous (or deadly in some cases) is where it is said "Do Not Look". Kills science right there, and people actually do die of self-imposed ignorance. I agree with Harris that there has been too much willfull blindness.
Add to this- why is it that we so seldom hear about someone coming upon a sight of extreme beauty and being overwhelmed by the love of nature? Here:
When I lived in Utah I was surrounded by some rather unpleasant people (of many religious stripes, lest you think I'm about to go off on an anti-LDS tangent). But I was surrounded by some really beautiful scenery. This is where we keep the Purple Mountains Majesty, after all.
The Wasatch would almost glow at sunset, and the sun in the high desert would cast golden rays as it went down- if its rays hit me, my own skin would take on the hue of antique 18 carat and I would feel beautiful, too. These were times which brought me into a realization of my own existence in the universe as a whole- reminded me of the entirety of the solar system and our collective fate and history going back to the very first moment in time. Such times *included* me, included everyone, as part of this all, not as some specially created creatures here to do the bidding of some Other.
The beauty of which we are a part is so much better than a beauty over which we are supposedly given dominance. The potential for knowledge is so much wider than the fetters of various religions would have us realise. The more we know, the more we discover, the more we look, the easier that is to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
