I saw a live taping of "Real Time" with Bill Maher on Friday. It was a great show tackling the current topic of birth control. Check it out!
The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Accommodation
Accommodation. It sounds like a nice word, doesn't it? It is for the most part a nice word when used in most context. There is one case however that I feel it is not such a nice word. It is when it leads to the compromising of important ideals to be politically correct.
The case in point is an initiative by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) called the Faith Project. It is a project to convince the general public that there are scientist who are religious, so it is OK to accept things like evolution and still be "faithful". It is all the buzz on some of the science blogs. Bloggers from both sides (see here, here, and here) of this issue have made their feelings clear. I feel I should put in my 2 cents worth as well.
My problem with what the NCSE is doing is, in effect, making one big argument from authority. The fact that there are scientist that are believers and practice science shows that it is the way to go. Wait a minute... Is not this the exact same argument creationist use, the same tactic? They often say, "Well scientist X believes the earth is 6000 years old, so it must be true. He has a PhD in Y subject." (Usually nothing to do with geology or biology or physics.) To quote Carl Sagan, "Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")." The NCSE is breaking this important principle of science, something it claims to hold dear.
Well, I have went so far as to write a letter the NCSE asking them to rethink this project. I am not confident they will listen to reason, but it is worth the shot. I encourage everyone here to write to the NCSE and explain to them why this project is a bad idea.
The case in point is an initiative by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) called the Faith Project. It is a project to convince the general public that there are scientist who are religious, so it is OK to accept things like evolution and still be "faithful". It is all the buzz on some of the science blogs. Bloggers from both sides (see here, here, and here) of this issue have made their feelings clear. I feel I should put in my 2 cents worth as well.
My problem with what the NCSE is doing is, in effect, making one big argument from authority. The fact that there are scientist that are believers and practice science shows that it is the way to go. Wait a minute... Is not this the exact same argument creationist use, the same tactic? They often say, "Well scientist X believes the earth is 6000 years old, so it must be true. He has a PhD in Y subject." (Usually nothing to do with geology or biology or physics.) To quote Carl Sagan, "Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")." The NCSE is breaking this important principle of science, something it claims to hold dear.
Well, I have went so far as to write a letter the NCSE asking them to rethink this project. I am not confident they will listen to reason, but it is worth the shot. I encourage everyone here to write to the NCSE and explain to them why this project is a bad idea.
Comment
-
Comment by The Nerd on January 22, 2010 at 9:44pm -
Yes, that's what I meant when I said "science is wrong because the voice in their head says so". That's old hat - people do that all the time. But now we have believers trying to change the convention of religion from within. Do we really want them to stop? "No wait, don't! You can't tell them that it's okay to accept science as real! That would ruin everything!"
-
Comment by Don Stevens on January 22, 2010 at 9:37pm -
Here is why that argument does not fly: That same voice in their head's tells them that scientist is not a good "Christian" or "Muslim" or whatever.
-
Comment by The Nerd on January 22, 2010 at 8:45pm
-
Think about it this way: which are they going to be convinced of first, that they should abandon their faith because the science is so convincing, or that science is wrong because the voice in their head says so? Of course they'll pick the latter (if not, the religious population would be much lower than it is). But what this campaign is trying to do is to introduce a third option that encourages acceptance of science: that they don't have to deny science just because of a dusty old tome. And for those religious folks who already embrace that third option, instead of having to stay in the closet about their belief in evolution, they can stand up and say "look, that scientist is a good Christian, so I'm not a bad person either for believing the same things he believes about the world around us!"
-
Comment by Don Stevens on January 22, 2010 at 7:05pm
-
It might be a good idea. If there is someone who knows how to put a good one together that would be effective in getting the message across and would garner a lot of signatures, that would be great. with my class schedule and work, it is hard for me to arrange time to do much else.
-
Comment by Charlotte on January 22, 2010 at 4:40pm -
What about a petition from all of us?
-
Comment by Sonny Mobley on January 22, 2010 at 1:21pm -
Accomodationist bastards.
Support Nexus
Click to Buy Amazon items and help A|N
Advertisements
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Jenn Rivera replied to Jenn Rivera's discussion 'Bloomfield Ten Commandments' in the group New Mexico Atheists
Chris Volkay commented on The Nerd's group 'The Brights'
Jenn Rivera replied to Jenn Rivera's discussion 'Bloomfield Ten Commandments' in the group New Mexico Atheists
Steph S. replied to Dan Rea's discussion 'Some muslim Insanity'
Steph S. replied to Dan Rea's discussion 'Some muslim Insanity'
Steph S. replied to Dan Rea's discussion 'Some muslim Insanity'
Steph S. replied to Byron's discussion 'Bad Experiences?' in the group In an "Interfaith" Relationship
Chris Volkay commented on Hemant's group 'Friendly Atheist'
Terry Groff shared their blog post on Twitter
Michael OL replied to Loren Miller's discussion 'If Atheism is a Religion, Then...' in the group Hang With Friends
Joan Denoo replied to Steven D Campagna's discussion 'CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES' in the group Hang With Friends
Michael OL replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion 'Predictable monogamous sex' in the group Secular Sexuality
Joan Denoo replied to Steven D Campagna's discussion 'CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES' in the group Hang With Friends
© 2012 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Brother Richard.
You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!
Join Atheist Nexus