I created a YouTube playlist: "Religion & Science: Haught, Dennett, & Wilson": http://www.youtube.com/user/TomUsherRLCC#grid/user/C98DF2A26E993F54 and added the following description:
John Haught, David Sloan Wilson, and Daniel Dennett as a panel discuss religion and science in 8 parts.
Intelligent Design is not exclusive to the self-styled Fundamentalists. Theistic evolution is not inconsistent with figurative interpretations of scripture. The underlying mechanics of Darwinian selection is a design. There are those who choose to insist that there can be no intelligence there. The atheist versus the agnostic is arguing from arrogance concerning this matter. Christian professors come in many stripes. Some have never had what they deem a metaphysical experience. The scientist can always say that there is hidden material technology behind all happenings. Otherwise, they don't "know" it. They simply believe it.
Scientism is exactly what Daniel Dennett practices. He repeated that he subjects all of John Haught's "hypotheses" to the scientific method as he, Dennett, defines that method. I say as he defines it because he includes in the "sciences" the social sciences in which he also includes psychology, although many psychologist would take umbrage with that notion that their system is not founded now at least on the "hard" sciences. He does apply it to all issues. It is his ideology whether he calls that fact nonsense or not.
The fact is that there is no possibility for me to speak to Daniel Dennett in any meaningful way since everything I say speaks right past him. He wants signs and wonders upon demand or he won't believe. That's exactly the point of separation of which Jesus spoke when he said to beware the leaven of the Pharisees and what Jesus meant when he said we aren't to test or tempt God. Those who insist upon it are precluded in the end. The proof is the outcome. We shall see.
At least David Wilson admitted to how religiosity can be applied to scientism. Of course, science is faith-based. It has no choice. Its faith is in itself. Whatever can be revealed, will be reveal via scientific methodology they think and believe. There is no revelation coming from spirit because they haven't scientifically (as they use the terms science, facts, knowledge, and the like) in their view, shown the spirit.
Haught's quote of Dawkins concerning scientism also refuted Dennett. Wilson said that Darwinism is the framework for investigating theology. Those aren't the exact terms he used, but they nevertheless apply. He doesn't allow for the opposite where scripture is used to evaluate Darwinism (not as Darwin applied it but as many scientists are nevertheless applying it as the end-all-be-all of truth and knowledge – not seeing it as even possibly a closed-looped).
I think science has gone down hill in that when I was young, the best scientists would never speak in absolutist terms but always remain open to discovering whole new ways of seeing. To me, there has been a great dumbing in that regard.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)