On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? >
A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual totalitarianism. Craig > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 > *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: > > On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are > being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a > fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. > > > Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has > displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. > > > This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. > Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can > give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some > theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot > eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a > pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). > > > > > Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was > replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system > was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain > chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the > divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the > wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been > alleviated... > > > OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific > attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned > theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make > "primary matter" the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when > physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, > notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and > imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. > This is just deeply not scientific. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
