From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The crowning irony is that belief in science *is* a religion, in effect if not design. Lay people usually aren't competent to decide whether scientists have provided adequate proof for their arguments, and they're almost invariably unable to make reasoned assessments of disputes between scientists. For most people, scientific pronouncements aren't at all illuminating but are as arbitary, opaque and mystifying as priestly decrees of ancient times. Historian Carl Becker made this argument many years ago, as I recall, in his essay "The Heavenly City of 18th Century Philosophers" -- i.e., that the Enlightenment has not proved very enlightening. Sure, people enjoy all the material benefits that modern technology produces, but they don't have a clue how this technology actually works; it might as well be magic. This remains very much the age of belief, not the age of reason.
Carl:
I think enlightenment comes from within, not from any evidence the
social sciences can produce. But that's just me channeling R. W.
Emerson again.<
if enlightenment comes only from within, then there's no way to convince
anyone else of the validity of your enlightenment. It's like those religious
people who say "you have to Believe to understand." Well, I don't believe,
so I'll just put your religion on the shelf next to astrology.
Carl
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
