Aside
May I deviate from the format of this blog very briefly and just...just vent a little? Just a little venting because there's a certain bloc of people in this country that are wearing on me, today especially.
What is it about assigning new definitions to well-established ideas that is so attractive to the religious conservatives?
In the case of intelligent design, they're trying to involve science in the sphere of philosophical and theological debate. What part of science consiting of theories that can be verified by experimentation and that are falsifiable do they not understand? The idea that God masterminded the design of the biological mechanism is not falsifiable and one cannot set up an experiment that supports such a 'theory.'
In the case of gay marriage, they seek to uproot the very philosophy underlying democracy. Too many people in this country associate the democratic process with the will of the people only. However, democracy consists of two pillars that should have been drilled into their heads during high school civics: Majority rule, Minority rights. You see, whether or not there should be a "vote" to allow or disallow gay marriage is moot. Your opinion on the matter doesn't...matter. A self-respecting democracy is compelled to respect and uphold the culture, individuality, religion, and social practices of the minority.
So remind me where the debate is? On either of these issues?
We will now return to our regularly scheduled programming: squirrels wearing hats.
What is it about assigning new definitions to well-established ideas that is so attractive to the religious conservatives?
In the case of intelligent design, they're trying to involve science in the sphere of philosophical and theological debate. What part of science consiting of theories that can be verified by experimentation and that are falsifiable do they not understand? The idea that God masterminded the design of the biological mechanism is not falsifiable and one cannot set up an experiment that supports such a 'theory.'
In the case of gay marriage, they seek to uproot the very philosophy underlying democracy. Too many people in this country associate the democratic process with the will of the people only. However, democracy consists of two pillars that should have been drilled into their heads during high school civics: Majority rule, Minority rights. You see, whether or not there should be a "vote" to allow or disallow gay marriage is moot. Your opinion on the matter doesn't...matter. A self-respecting democracy is compelled to respect and uphold the culture, individuality, religion, and social practices of the minority.
So remind me where the debate is? On either of these issues?
We will now return to our regularly scheduled programming: squirrels wearing hats.
"ma'am"
7 Comments:
I love you Erik Axdahl.
Well done and well stated!!
Don't worry, Erik, we'll always be married in my heart...
and in my basement.
Misguided indeed... I've gotten exrememely sick of the intelligent design 'debate'
this country could sure use someone like you Erik.
uh... squirrel wearing hat? cute. :)
btw... it's only now i noticed the link to me... however it's not updated. hey, only if you have time! and thanks! :)
m'dear - you can't tell me that a scientist such as your self has never taken a class in philosophy of science?
As a philosophy student it pains me to see you lump my precious studies in with theological meanderings. yes, theology is a sect of philosophy, but so is formal logic.
I honestly can't say that I've taken a Philosophy of Science class. Consistently taking 17-19 credit classes that are made up of required classes alone aren't too helpful in taking other electives.
However, I get the impression that such a class would be helpful for a philosopher seeking an understanding of science. I think I can safely say that I get that knowledge already through my classes and my work.
Post a Comment
<< Home