So last night i went to the philosophy discussion on, “What creationists wants.” and in short i think it was a very pleasant activity to spend time completing.
Her argument was, interestingly put, similar to Trey’s argument on his blog. Conceptually speaking, she argued, Creationism does not need to compete with Evolution. She said that Creationists answer the question “Why” and Evolutionists answer the question “How”. Then she went on to say that the Creationists argument that Evolution shouldn’t be included in biology text books because Creationist cannot are absurd such that biology is a science and creationism is a religion.
SO. She poses a thought-question to everyone at the meeting, but mostly to the creationists.
Invision a world where religious authority leads the realm’s moral decisions, and all practical decisions are made using religious moral understanding. (i.e. stem cell research would be immoral and banned) Then she said that evolution and naturalist interpretations of science would also be accepted.
Is there something wrong with this kind of world to a creationist?
I don’t know but i see serious difficulties arising from the scientific community. Why does the religious community get to dictate the moral decisions? What makes their appeals to a Godhead more morally sound then our appeals to logica and rationality. (our meaning ethical)
Her whole argument reeks of Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of NOMA. The belief that morality has no place in the scientific realm of understanding. It is absurd to make that claim. Just like it is absurd to make the claim that science cannot tell what is beyond the horizon, or in the depths of space. BTW his theory is in a book called the Rocks of Ages. He suggests Science is the language of how and Religion is the language of Why.
NOMA is Non-Overlapping Magesteria. The belief is that the two areas of explanation do not overlap in any fashion that their descriptions are segregated about the same object.
I asked her if her “thought-experiment” was supposed to be seriously considered by the scientific community. She said that she didn’t see why the scientific community would object. I claimed that there were an abundance of reasons the scientific community would deny NOMA and more so her argument itself. I said how about the crusades? This got a nice little chuckle out of a lot of people in the room, even her. She then remarked that secular goverment hasn’t really done well in history itself. I bawked but then launched into the following sequence of statements ignoring the comment about secular government.
Both NOMA and Dr. Figdor’s (visiting professor from Rutger’s university) ideas tend to destroy the foundations of Ethical Theory. If science can’t appeal to Ethics for their moral trends we will be reverting back to the dark ages in terms of moral treatment. Everyone would have to live their life afraid of going to hell, and then produce the moral choices they feel will keep them out of hell.
These beliefs also have huge ramefications on the scientific front. If someone makes moral decisions about life based on the existence of god, then wouldn’t that mean that scientific progression will be relegated to what we can percieve as not religious. Remember the stars and space were considered Heavens and under the domain of God. Had religion been in power, would we have launched a spaceship? Landed on the moon? Sent the hubble satelitte into space?
Of course not, what if god got angry and destroyed us for infringing on his land. I’m kidding of course.