[Dialogue] Gloriosky!! A real, meaty dialogue: Fundamentalists court disaster

[Karl Hess]

I suspect that some of the 'inconsistency' is 
that the religious left is in denial about the 
nature of science according to some of its 
leading proponents, especially biologists.  They 
often are very straightforward about asserting 
that science is about the entire nature of the 
cosmos.  Nothing can exist outside human rational 
processes.  Most of us learned a much more modest 
definition of science.

Assuming that definition, though, any theist, or 
even any deist,  would have a 'religiously 
motivated distrust of 'science'.

Karl

>
>
>Gloriosky!! A real, meaty dialogue  worthy of the Dialogue mission
>
>Typically, I came at this backwards, read Bill 
>Schlesinger’s comment first.  (Re: [Dialogue] 
>Bush's Fondness For Fundamentalism Is Courting 
>Disaster)
>
>As a Nebraskan, I am troubled by William 
>Jennings Bryan’s animus toward evolution. But I 
>am also aware of progressive stands he took on 
>social and economic issues and his courageous 
>resignation as Secretary of State from Pres. 
>Wilson’s cabinet. He did so in principled 
>opposition to certain of Wilson’s foreign policy 
>statements. So I began with mixed feelings.
>
>I was particularly puzzled by Schlesinger’s 
>initial statement, "The argument here does not 
>hold full internal consistency." As I read on, I 
>realized how suspicious I am of Bush’s motives 
>in his charitable initiatives, which Schlesinger 
>applauds. Apparently I was distracted at that 
>point by an important personal message and it 
>was only later that I noted George Holcombe had 
>written on the topic. And then, finally I read 
>Harry’s original posting and saw that it was by 
>Karen Armstrong, an author whose writings and 
>life I deeply admire.
>
>So I read Armstrong’s piece carefully, then 
>reread both Holcombe and Schlesinger. Now I am 
>even more puzzled by the statement that 
>Armstrong’s "argument" isn’t internally 
>consistent. Armstrong does ask, "Is there a 
>connection between a religiously motivated 
>mistrust of science, glaring social injustice, 
>and a war in the Middle East? Bush and his 
>administration espouse many of the ideals of the 
>Christian right and rely on its support." Then 
>later Schlesinger states, "His (Bush’s) actions 
>in Israel and Iraq are more closely linked to 
>oil and other ‘rational’ values than we admit." 
>At least he puts "rational" in quotes.
>
>But, if as president you feel a necessity to go 
>to war for oil in the Middle East, and you 
>realize you must mobilize popular support, then 
>whether or not you share the "fantastic" beliefs 
>of influential Fundamentalists, it’s to your 
>advantage to motivate them to lobby Congress for 
>your war. That’s not irrational or inconsistent, 
>it’s just cynical. Don’t forget that Tom Delay 
>led a significant coterie of rapture believers 
>and he did have Congressional clout. Yes, Karen, 
>I believe your suggestion that there was a 
>connection, I see no inconsistency.
>
>In the end, Schlesinger quotes Armstrong’s 
>statement again: "Is there a connection between 
>a religiously motivated mistrust of science, 
>glaring social injustice, and a war in the 
>Middle East?" Then is says, "The Catholic Church 
>is no friend to the latter two, but shares a 
>sense of the question of the first. Science says 
>what we can do. Religious values argue for what 
>we should do – including caring for the poor and 
>weak, seeking peace, and acknowledging the 
>complexities of the human condition."
>
>Is Schlesinger arguing that the Catholic Church 
>believes there is no connection between any 
>religiously motivated mistrust of science that 
>helped Bush build support for war in the Middle 
>East? I’m aware that Armstrong notes that 
>"Thomas H. Huxley, who popularized the Origin of 
>Species, insisted that people had to choose 
>between faith and science; there could be no 
>compromise" But it seems obvious that she is 
>explaining how this all started, not stating her 
>own belief.. From everything of hers that I have 
>read, I cannot believe she lacks faith or that 
>she would argue with the proposition that 
>"Science says what we can do. Religious values 
>argue for what we should do."
>
>Finally, I agree with George that "Politics 
>majors in inconsistencies." I do not believe 
>that Bush is incapable of a kind, charitable 
>act, one that is totally uncynical.  I believe 
>that all humans have a shred of decency in them 
>and will occasionally surprise us by acting 
>charitably.  I remember some years ago when the 
>New York press had a field day telling how a 
>group of notorious gang members rushed into a 
>burning building and rescued people. "We just 
>did what any red blooded American guys would 
>have done," one said. (It was the Gallo gang if 
>my memory is correct.)
>
>Unfortunately, our world needs leaders who act 
>decently, charitably and responsibly 
>consistently. Occasional acts of decency aren’t 
>by any means enough.
>
>Jim Rippey, Bellevue, NE
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060803/1a9dc535/attachment.html