DoSER

After my presentation Friday at the AAAS meeting, I stopped by the reception of DoSER (AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion).

It was interesting, but my impression was that this was a bunch of people trying to keep the peace by setting aside discordant voices: Dawkins-style nonbelievers and Discovery Institute-style believers. (In other words, anyone who more agressively highlights disagreements.) So it’s a bit of a club devoted to mutual back-slapping about their common reasonableness.

Having a dialogue is not a bad idea. Science and religion as important social institutions have plenty of incentive to keep the peace. Somebody should work on this. But it’s not me. One thing I like about science is that you’re allowed to call something bullshit as long as you’re willing to argue your case. In an environment like DoSER, I get the impression that this gets perceived as threatening the peace.

So I guess I hope DoSER and so forth continue doing useful political work. But if they get more influence, there’s also a danger that such efforts will be a bad intellectual influence. I wouldn’t like to see the sort of mush they promote to start interfering with work of real substance.

"I agree that this "extrapolate to infinity" is very presumptuous, but nevertheless it is what ..."

A moral argument against the resurrection
""John Searle says that 'subjective' has an ontological sense and an epistemological sense""In an ontological ..."

Can humans create meaning? Can God?
"Can Parfit have his object/​state-given reasons without something like teleology? Indeed, the way Jason is ..."

Can humans create meaning? Can God?
""The rejection of theism does NOT imply the rejection of belief in an afterlife."Excellent point. ..."

ATHEISM 101

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment