SocraticGadfly: Pharyngula tees off on religion in higher ed, courtesy of a post of mine

July 23, 2006

Pharyngula tees off on religion in higher ed, courtesy of a post of mine

A throwaway comment by Pharyngula himself, PZ Myers, about getting religion out of academia, posted here as a response to my own blog post about Southern Baptist litmus tests at universities, has drawn plenty of fire.

Here’s my comments in the fray:

I'm an atheist with a graduate divinity degree, so I guess I have a special insight on these issues from the religion and philosophy side.

PZ's "substitute religion for fundamentalism" comment is certainly provocative. But, to the degree every religion claims that certain metaphysical truths are a priori true, his comment is also perfectly valid.

This post reminds me that everybody should be required to take a class on critical thinking in high school. Textbook would be Bob Carroll's The Skeptic's Dictionary plus a book on informal logic.

Contrary to Rob, science does not have a contrary a priori that supernatural items do not exist. It rather simply says they are not amenable to scientific study and therefore outside of consideration. It's not the same thing at all.

Beyond that, Rob, nobody says scientists must approach everything in life with a scientific POV. I don't approach Beethoven or Shakespeare, or my own poetry writing or nature photography that way.

Indeed, PZ, I did a newspaper column about that, including how I can experience "inspiration" in a naturalistic sense, poignant emotions that could be considered ineffable, etc., all without any need for supernaturalistic explanation.

Mnemosyne said:

"Religion falls into the same realm as art -- it's a spiritual, intangible thing. Do you really think the best way to appreciate the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo's David is with a spectrometer?"

NO. But, do my eyeballs have to have read some religious books, or my chemically vitalized carcass have to have been in a church/synagogue/mosque/temple/ashram to appreciate Mona Lisa or David as much as a religious person?

NO, again.

People like you, who insist something about the human spirit/striving/personality/aesthetics/emotions/values DEMANDS a religious antecedent are the ones who "don't get it," not people like me.

I addressed this issue, as well, in the newspaper column I wrote.

No comments: