Ian Andreas "Diaphanus" Miller (diaphanus) wrote,
Ian Andreas "Diaphanus" Miller

  • Mood:

Quid cum Ruse Sit?

"Quid cum Ruse Sit?"
"What Is with Ruse?"

Coyne has plenty of good answers to what Ruse says:

Michael Ruse: Heaven and miracles are perfectly consistent with science

I’m not a psychologist, so I won’t suggest the motivations for this, but none of them seem savory to me.  I could talk about “belief in belief,” or early religious belief that, once rejected, still lingers, but who knows?


Now Ruse would probably reply that religious claims don’t require scientific evidence—that they are based on faith, revelation, and teachings of the church.  But we have no confidence that those give us any reliable information about “realities” like heaven or an afterlife, if for no other reason than that different faiths give different answers. Many Jews don’t accept an afterlife, many Hindus believe not in a celestial realm of souls but in reincarnation, and Buddhists don’t have a heaven at all.

That's right.

Well, maybe lots of religious people will be relieved to know that Jesus wasn’t a fancy caterer, but I don’t believe it.

I don't either.

Ruse: New Atheists treat Darwinism as a “secular religion”

Where are the data showing that New Atheists have turned people away from evolution?  And the incompatibility between many aspects of science and faith does lead many to a religion-or-science kind of thinking, but nobody, least of all me, teaches that in the classroom.  And remember who started that: the faithful who insisted that evolution was incompatible with their faith.


But the stuff about treating Darwinism as a secular religion is offal.  It’s based purely on the fact that many of us see Darwin as a kind of scientific hero. Many physicists hold Einstein in similar regard. Does that make physics a secular religion?  At least we know that Einstein and Darwin existed, unlike the father-figure of conventional faith.  Nor do we see Darwin or Einstein as having supernatural powers or a postmortem ability to personally (as opposed to scientifically) influence the world. Indeed, all of us know that their science was sometimes flawed.  Darwin’s genetics was wonky; Einstein couldn’t accept pure indeterminism. Try finding a religious person who sees any flaws in God.


Ruse could improve his pieces, at least marginally, if he wasn’t always so butthurt.  Really, does he expect us to praise him for such blather?  He needs to learn to keep his wounded ego out of his posts; it only makes him look weak and vindictive.

Absolutely. (Does that make me sound too religious?)
Tags: coyne, ruse
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.