I Really Like This Guy

This ought to be posted, though you lazy bastards could see it under the comments tab at the end of the original post. I think Jamie is onto something here. Why can't the rest of you be more like him? C'mon people, you won't find any ideas on your shoes...



I'm not a historian (ya'll make theoretical physics look easy), but the current split b/t faith and reason seems to have its roots, if only ideologically, in the 19th century. 1859, if you want a specific date, as in the pub. date of "On the Origin of Species . . ."The current debate in the school boards of Cobb County, GA, Dover, PA, and KS over the teaching of real biology (based on evolution) versus intelligent design (based on argument from ignorance/ medieval ju-ju/ math is hard and I'm scared) provides a good laboratory for the question you ask, if I'm interpreting it correctly.It will be difficult to reconcile science and morality when most Americans fail to understand science (paradoxically, since we are at the forefront of science and tech, for now). And I don't mean science as in actual scientific knowledge, but in the process of science - methodological naturalism. Despite Bush's emphasis on "teaching science," many of his supporters reject the most well-defended fact and theory of biology - evolution. Maybe this is due to a conflation b/t methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, though even then, phl. nat. still argues for morality, and in my opionion, more productively.Schools aren't teaching kids to think scientifically, that is, logically and not dogmatically. EOG tests only exacerbate this problem (ala NCLB). Anyone with half a brain knows that multiple choice tests, for instance, are a disservice to students and a total sham. The colleges and universities even are becoming bastardized, career-track diploma mills of basic vocational training (read: regurgitation).Reconciling science and morality? Let's start with giving people science. Morality, real morality, will proceed from there. Even the most ardent of atheist scientists, like Richard Dawkins, argue for moral action, perhaps with more legitimate fervor than some goddies. Plus, science provides the "how" for moral action (had too many beers to get into that right now though).This false dichotomy b/t science and religion/ morality is an antiquated concept. S.J. Gould did a good job on this issue in "Rocks of Ages," though he did create, as his central thesis, the masturbatory and extraneously polysyllabic phrase "nonoverlapping magisteria," basically that science asks "how" and religion asks "why." Religious people (not so much in Europe, or here, in academia) continue to view modern science as antithetic to religion. And we falsely equate religion with morality (unless we're talking about Muslims of course, cause only Muslims commit acts of terror, Mr. Eric Rudolph).I meant to offer a more substantive response here, but I'm still at a loss on this issue (and a bit tipsy now). Maybe it's my scientific bias - I believe strongly in right action, and I believe scientific method is the best tool in providing a framework for the most effective action. But Bill Moyers quotes a Gallup poll in In These Times that says that one third of us 'mericans believe the Bible to be literally true. Extrapolating this, that means 1 out of 3 of us don't know how to read, 1 out of 3 of us believe that the Earth is about 8000 years old, dinosaurs coexisted with modern humans, Noah was one hell of a boat builder, and medical science can't help HIV victims. So I don't know.Basically, we're just fucked. Maybe there's hope in the next generation. . . . at least kids are still inquisitive and relatively un-indoctrinated . . . Jamie