Asymmetric Religion and Philosophy

My scientific colleagues have additional reasons to declare emergency. Ignorant and absolutist attacks on stem cell research are just the tip of an iceberg. What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics. Science education - and hence the whole future of science in this country - is under threat. Temporarily beaten back in a Pennsylvania court, the 'breathtaking inanity' (Judge John Jones's immortal phrase) of 'intelligent design' continually flares up in local bush-fires. Dowsing them is a time-consuming but important responsibility, and scientists are finally being jolted out of their complacency. For years they quietly got on with their science, lamentably underestimating the creationists who, being neither competent nor interested in science, attended to the serious political business of subverting local school boards. Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban.

The Enlightenment or The Realignment?

I'ts well known that many Enlightenment philosphers like Descartes and scientists like Newton were, in fact, very religious-and I'm not even an Oxford professor. The age of Enlightenment is rightly credited with expanding science and Earthly concerns. But this fact doesn't have to be anti-religious. One can say that the human mind has a finite capacity to concern itself with different subjects at the same time. When I started blogging, for example, I had to stop playing Civ3 and talking to my wife (just kidding). Does that mean that those things are now worthless? As people concerned themselves with science and human improvement, people devoted themselves less to religious pursuits. Who knows what the proper mix is? I probably couldn't be a monk, but I value religion. The fact that people thought about other things just means the percentage of brain-effort devoted to religion went down-and that may have been good for many practical reasons. It does not, therefore, follow that no time spent on religion is better. In fact, another time I'll discuss why that may actually be a bad thing.

I won't defend ID as I'm not sold on it myself, but I will address the American Taliban charge. I don't understand how a man devoted to rationality can fail to distinguish between two so dissimilar groups as American Christians and the Afghan Taliban. As a service to him, I'll point out a few things:

1. AmTal doesn't want a state religion. AfTal does.
2. AmTal doesn't want to kill non-believers. Aftal does.
3. AmTal doesn't want to kick girls out of schools. AfTal does.
4. AmTal...well you get the idea.

People should really question the motives or sanity of somebody who sees a similarity between the two groups beyond the fact that both pray. If that's his criteria, then he has a problem with 95% of the people on Earth and probably 50% of people at Oxford.