From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 11:39:35 BST
Hi Mark,
Catching up on some minor bits and pieces.
>>
>> It seems to me that, at this point, the discussion would be over but,
>> because, for whatever reason, most (all?) theologians are desirous
>> of science's stamp of approval, they constantly offer challenges
>> exactly like the challenge offered by Scott to begin this thread.
>> And the circle goes round...
>
> sam:
> I think Feyarabend's missive was to the point.
>
> msh:
> I'll see if I can find it... but I thought we all agreed to keep
> secondary informational scavenger hunts to a minimum.
It was in the post I sent in describing two sorts of conversation. Probably
got missed.... But his main point was that the church was too submissive in
the face of scientific claims. I tend to agree with him.
>> So, to me the interesting question has always been, why do
>> theologians so often appear to seek the imprimatur of science?
>
> sam:
> Because they've absorbed the ideology of the age.
>
> msh:
> BUt why the absorption one way and not the other? Why wasn't
> Oppenheimer running around trying to get Reinhold Niebuhr's approval?
Social level thinking, deferring to the possession of power. Science - for a
time - has had the power, therefore there is a 'gravitational pull' to get
its approval. The same thing happened in reverse in the middle ages. As you
put it to Matt "When I said "social-level thought" I meant all thought that
is static and therefore protective of the status quo. I meant all thought
that retards rather than enhances evolution."
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 05 2005 - 11:44:01 BST