Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Science and Politics
The debate over the role of science vs. religion in politics is not new. More importantly, it is generally not cogent--it is seldom a conversation much less a debate. I cannot have a conversation with you if you are more willing to believe in the pits of hell than in the Big Bang.
The conversation can and should be had. So, to kick it off, here is an interesting reflection from NPR's Adam Frank, suggesting many key issues in the presidential election are scientific, even if the candidates are not talking about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Tim,
ReplyDeleteGood to find your blog.
What if one rejects both pits of Hell and the Big Bang? Fred Hoyle is surely such an eminence. He makes for a nice segue to mention a fellow whom you seem to regard somewhat favorably -- Dick Dawkins, the self-styled eminence grise of 'Reason'.
For no religious reason whatever (I posit no deities) I find capital-E-evolution difficult to believe, and am more than skeptical of the grandiose/totalistic claims made on modern science's behalf by its votaries. So I have some sympathy for religious folk who not only resist the propositions of science which contradict dogma, but may intuit however inchoately that a dubious authority is being claimed for 'Science' generally.