![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Reductio ad absurdam
Jan. 20th, 2010 12:12 pmI'm getting a bit worried by the tendency of the more academic people in my circle of aquaintances to increasingly resort to over-simplistic scientistic arguments, that are almost always used to specifically belittle anyone of a religious persuasion by implying that they are all stupid, dangerous people who are deliberately blind to evidence.
I'd just like to point out that this winning combination prompted the endearing eugenics movement. It may make sense scientifically, but is socially unacceptable if you want to live in a liberal and free society. Physical sciences should not exclusively inform societal decisions, IMO, and tackling fundamentalism by being elitist bullies doesn't help anyone, it just lowers you to using the same tactics that you claim to hate in them. Secondly, there are many, many scientists of a religious persuasion, often BECAUSE of their scientific work and not despite it.
I'm also a little uneasy about the fact that various academic fora have jumped on a campaign ostensibly designed to prove that atheists are able to care by donating to Haiti under what amounts to an Atheist manifesto. To me, this is seemingly designed to propagate, not to demolish the "scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow humans". Personally, I hadn't come into contact with that "myth" until reading this patronising secular propaganda, despite a peculiar fundamentalist up-bringing and more contact with odd Christians than you can shake a stick at. I'm happy with my atheist leanings, but I do not feel the need to sign everything I do ALMOST DOCTOR NAOMI BSc(Hons) MSc (Distinction) FIBMS DIC (Atheist).
Which isn't to say that the rise of fundamentalists in politics who use religion as a tool to absolve themselves of personal responsibilty or to justify superiority isn't worrying too, of course it is... but how is doing the same with The Infallibility of Science TM as your credo any better if it leads to totalitarian crap that ignores ethics? Surely that's just the opposite extreme?
I don't know enough about this to comment authoritatively, so, any thoughts?
I'd just like to point out that this winning combination prompted the endearing eugenics movement. It may make sense scientifically, but is socially unacceptable if you want to live in a liberal and free society. Physical sciences should not exclusively inform societal decisions, IMO, and tackling fundamentalism by being elitist bullies doesn't help anyone, it just lowers you to using the same tactics that you claim to hate in them. Secondly, there are many, many scientists of a religious persuasion, often BECAUSE of their scientific work and not despite it.
I'm also a little uneasy about the fact that various academic fora have jumped on a campaign ostensibly designed to prove that atheists are able to care by donating to Haiti under what amounts to an Atheist manifesto. To me, this is seemingly designed to propagate, not to demolish the "scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow humans". Personally, I hadn't come into contact with that "myth" until reading this patronising secular propaganda, despite a peculiar fundamentalist up-bringing and more contact with odd Christians than you can shake a stick at. I'm happy with my atheist leanings, but I do not feel the need to sign everything I do ALMOST DOCTOR NAOMI BSc(Hons) MSc (Distinction) FIBMS DIC (Atheist).
Which isn't to say that the rise of fundamentalists in politics who use religion as a tool to absolve themselves of personal responsibilty or to justify superiority isn't worrying too, of course it is... but how is doing the same with The Infallibility of Science TM as your credo any better if it leads to totalitarian crap that ignores ethics? Surely that's just the opposite extreme?
I don't know enough about this to comment authoritatively, so, any thoughts?