is one of the greatest human achievements, but some atheists seem to raise the level of science our savior
last week, argued that if science and religion can be clearly compatible, which often mix less comfortable than most believers confidently maintain. There are, however, on the other side of the story of the relationship of science to the belief: the idea that many atheists that science is not just for their part, but your best friend. The uncomfortable truth for believers and atheists, is that science is a loner who never avoids revealing embarrassing truths about anyone trying to claim ownership of it.
This is not the point of view rather ridiculous that science is "a myth" that the physics of Niels Bohr is not "valid" the poetry of Beowulf. In fact, I'm not sure that anyone gave this more than a second of thought that has that. John Gray sounds often as if he does, but what it really says is that science "has become a vehicle of myth," as the inevitable progress of science itself no better way to understand the world of beliefs about sun gods or spirits of the earth.
Talk about "myths" that I find to be an inexpensive way to try to assimilate the perennial problems of science with religion, when in fact they are very different. While religion is enough to find a way to coexist with science, atheistic humanism is often claimed too close a relationship with him. Science appears as what founds and justifies the humanistic perspective. In an important sense this is right. Atheism can be defined negatively with respect to theism, but atheists are naturalists, above all, committed to a positive vision of the universe contains only entities and natural forces. This view is not held as a matter of faith, but because that's what the scientific evidence strongly suggests.
If it is a marriage of science and atheism, then one must admit that in all other, the two have a relationship not exclusive. Take the statement made some years ago by the British Humanist Association agreed with the statement "and other scientific evidence is the best way to understand the universe" is a characteristic of the humanistic perspective, humanistic or 2002 international " Amsterdam Declaration, which kept "Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry problems of human welfare." These two statements are made with the same conviction of many believers. It's just that for them, science leaves many questions open, and in such cases, we are entitled to base our judgments on non-scientific reasons. Only the most fanatical scientism emphasize object, which science can not speak, one must be silent. You can find abroad and standing before a table, only interested in what your brain is made in response to visual stimuli, but that person would be just that:. Oddmost problematic of all, however, is sometimes simplistically that science is supposed to defend, or even determine, the secular humanist approach to life. First, it seems very clear that science really threatens to undermine many cherished beliefs traditionally held by secular humanists. Of course, secular humanism maintains the value of autonomy, individual freedom and rational. If the science of humanity has proved nothing at all in recent decades is that humans are much less autonomous, rational and free of what we expect. As a matter of fact, do not think any of these challenges defeats what really matters about the humanist vision of ourselves. However, to argue that it would be difficult and I'm not sure I could do it successfully so far. Moreover, it remains possible that advances in the science of dogmas atheists really going to break some time. These are sufficient reasons to believe that by embracing science as closely, atheists are just making it easier to backstab.
When Harris sounds convincing when he attacks the idea that science is nothing crazy to say about human values. Scientific evidence can indeed reveal moral facts, such as inequality and absolute levels of wealth affects the well-being, that the different "races" are not that different races and not really feel that some animals pain, and what type it is, and so on. Science can also reveal the physiological and neurological mechanisms that underlie what we value in life, such as achieving flow states or avoid pain. But science can not tell us what to evaluate, because when he tells us how things are, there is always the question, what to do about it? You can, for example, we say that X produces more happiness than Y, but can not tell us we should do everything it produces the greatest happiness.
book Harris The standing ovation he received many atheists - but fortunately far from all - is a symptom of an unhealthy desire to raise the scientific level of our savior. Gray is the kind of mythology is the right to warn against. Science is indeed one of our greatest achievements of mankind and we must respect, admire and feed to inform our worldview. However, it can not provide all of this notice and we can not blithely assume that always support our most fundamental beliefs. Atheists must accept that they are not the same flesh with science, and their love and admiration can not be matched with the same passion they imply.
Find best price for : --Harris----Bohr----Niels--