Met RD awhile back-probably a year or two before his stroke;he seemed surprised I recognized him, as apparently no one else did, when I ran into him and n a viewing area at the S rim of the Grand Canyon. Always admired his breath of knowledge, and agree with his take on Religion…tho it’s more strident than my own approach.
The big problem is there is no such thing as a scientific worldview.
Science is descriptive, it is not prescriptive. To make a worldview you need a basis for ethics, science cannot do this. When you move from describing a thing, to a moral judgement that what is must be good, you have entered into the naturalists fallacy.
I can study genghis khan conquests, but when I condemn his brutality and the deaths of 60 million, I cease doing history or science and make an ethical statement.
I think you’ve done a fine job summarizing this position. I’d argue however that it is somewhat flawed. Because science is unequipped to answer many of our deepest questions. There is therefore a rational worldview that includes some assumptions about the nature of our universe and our existence, including whether things like a higher power or free will exist. There is simply no scientific way of determining for instance whether someone who claims to be reincarnated or to have returned from death is insane or lying. So these fundamental question that inform many value judgements are simply unanswered and often unanswerable by science.
Please understand I don’t make these arguments as an excuse to ignore rational and scientific observations, but rather to compliment them.
Poetry about reality. Richard Dawkins would be proud to have written this, DJ
Met RD awhile back-probably a year or two before his stroke;he seemed surprised I recognized him, as apparently no one else did, when I ran into him and n a viewing area at the S rim of the Grand Canyon. Always admired his breath of knowledge, and agree with his take on Religion…tho it’s more strident than my own approach.
"It prizes empirical evidence and reasoning as the best way of truly understanding this natural world and our place in it."
Nope. Ask an American scientist about the origin of the chin.
If you want serious answers:
https://eharding.substack.com/p/why-does-russian-physical-therapy
You are an excellent writer.ty.
The big problem is there is no such thing as a scientific worldview.
Science is descriptive, it is not prescriptive. To make a worldview you need a basis for ethics, science cannot do this. When you move from describing a thing, to a moral judgement that what is must be good, you have entered into the naturalists fallacy.
I can study genghis khan conquests, but when I condemn his brutality and the deaths of 60 million, I cease doing history or science and make an ethical statement.
Interesting piece. Thank you for posting.
I think you’ve done a fine job summarizing this position. I’d argue however that it is somewhat flawed. Because science is unequipped to answer many of our deepest questions. There is therefore a rational worldview that includes some assumptions about the nature of our universe and our existence, including whether things like a higher power or free will exist. There is simply no scientific way of determining for instance whether someone who claims to be reincarnated or to have returned from death is insane or lying. So these fundamental question that inform many value judgements are simply unanswered and often unanswerable by science.
Please understand I don’t make these arguments as an excuse to ignore rational and scientific observations, but rather to compliment them.
https://radmod.substack.com/p/schrodingers-cat-fatalism-and-faith