"Far more important is this: Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method. Science is a lens through which we can and should visualize and solve complex problems, organize government and multilateral bodies, establish international alliances, inspire national pride, restore positive feelings about America around the globe, embolden democracy, and ultimately, lead the world. More than anything, what this lens offers the next administration is a limitless capacity to handle all that comes its way, no matter how complex or unanticipated.
Sen. Obama's embrace of transparency and evidence-based decision-making, his intelligence and curiosity echo this new way of looking at the world. And that is what we should be weighing in the voting booth. For his positions and, even more, for his way of coming to them, we endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States."
Aside from the parasitic resonant ringing with Lenin's "Utopia and Scientific Socialism", the "new way of looking at the world" has been tried and found wanting: wanting of any trace morality beyond evolutionary-theory driven thrusts into social engineering. If SEED thinks Obama is transparent and evidence-based, then their "lens" must have some aberrations that need serious attention. Science will not judge the ethics of hate crimes against minority thought, the totalitarian aspects of "positive" liberties, the "person status" of devalued human life, or Muslim vs. Jew. Those who think it will are actually those who will make up ethics as they need it; they are dangerous, and they have been in charge before. Do scientists ever read history?
SEED is a one-trick pony; who it endorses is inconsequential.
1 comment:
I get the same impression watching the sessions from the Beyond Belief 2006 conference: Dawkins and his ilk's attempt to reduce morality all the way down to the selfish gene feels as unconvincing as Derrida and the postmodernists' deconstruction of everything that matters: tired, outdated, and fanatically ignorant.
The one atheist philosopher that makes for an interesting reading (and was not at the conference -- virtually everyone there were Anglophones) is Andre Comte-Sponville: his "Little Book of Atheist Spirituality" makes the case for a humanist morality while leaving the door open on the mystery that is God's existence (or non-existence).
Unlike Dawkins, he calls for respect and tolerance between the believers and non-believers too.
(Sam Harris came out from the conference looking quite reasonable, actually. His main beef appears to be with the historically more extremist monotheistic faiths, and not so much their followers -- or non-theistic Eastern religions)
Post a Comment