James Wood is a Harvard Professor of English, specializing in literary criticism, a practice he regularly engages in reviewing books for the New Yorker. I like his literary work because he seems an advocate of the outdated but still best form of criticism: “New Criticism”, in which works are taken as they are—as aesthetic expressions—not … Continue reading Blatant atheism in The New Yorker!
Among the Most Annoying Accommodationists (male category), we have Chris Mooney, Andrew Brown, Mark Vernon, Chris Steadman, and many others too numerous to list. But in the female category, four people immediately spring to mind: Elaine Ecklund (constantly twists her survey data to show that scientists are, after all, more religious or “spiritual” than most … Continue reading Tanya Lurhmann strikes again; explain why it’s good to speak in tongues
Bloodhound Sigmund is on the BioLogos case again. Here, stimulated by some artwork and comments at BioLogos, he analyzes the question of why so many scientists in the U.S., compared to the general populace, are nonbelievers. His conclusion is that science actually erodes belief in God. I find that plausible simply because it’s happened to … Continue reading Guest post: Are scientists nonbelievers because of self selection or because science erodes belief?
I want to point out two pieces by website comrades that appeared today; both are worth reading. Over at EvolutionBlog, Jason continues his survey of scriptural morality in a nice post called “Is the Bible a reliable guide to morality?” He’s discussing an essay by David Lose on PuffHo in which Lose, while acknowledging that … Continue reading Two posts you should read
I haven’t yet read this study, but it’s just come out and is being publicized all over the place. It’s an Oxford University Study on the pervasiveness of religious belief. As CNN reports: Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests. “We tend to … Continue reading New Oxford study: religion pervasive, ergo impossible to eradicate
When the topic of the antagonism between science and religion arises, people who seem reasonably intelligent suddenly seem to lose some neurons. We saw an example earlier today with Elaine Ecklund, who appears to have become a Templeton-funded automaton, endlessly repeating false mantras of accommodationism. Now writer Lauri Lebo has fallen victim as well. She’s … Continue reading Some people just don’t get it
I’m not sure why the past couple of years have seen such increased attention to the “war” between science and faith. It’s all over HuffPo, for example (another instance last week), and the Templeton Foundation pays lots of dosh to people who argue that the conflict between these areas is bogus, or that the breach … Continue reading Should science and faith have a chat?
The “science-and-faith-are-friends” articles just keep on coming as religious people try to neuter the discipline most dangerous to their faith. Here’s one more. I don’t want to dissect it in extenso, but I’ll call it to your attention. Matthew Reisz, a features writer for the Times Higher Education, has written “The Dogma Delusion,” a long analysis … Continue reading Times Higher Ed promotes a science-faith lovefest
This study has been online for more than a year, but it’s just been touted in two places: in an article at HuffPo by Ph.D. candidate Amarnath Amarasingham, and as a link at Templeton’s Big Questions Online site. Why the attention? Because the study, published in Sociology of Religion by Neil Gross at the University … Continue reading How religious are American professors?
People like Elaine Ecklund are always urging scientists to “dialogue” with the faithful, expecting that it will benefit both of them. (What people like her really want, of course, is not benefits to science but more tolerance of religion.) I haven’t been averse to such dialogue. Although I certainly don’t think it’s going to improve … Continue reading A confab with the faithful