Saturday, September 25, 2010

Science v. "Religion" Again

The Times Higher Education Supplement is running a fine, lengthy review article on the relationship between science and faith, definitely worth reading for all with an interest in the subject (and if you bother with this blog, you're doubtless interested).

We simply add that in this article, "religion" is once again a euphemism for Christianity. None of this debate would exist were it not for the highly offensive, missionary faith in the incarnation of Israel's God.


JB in CA said...

I agree. It's a good article. I especially like the final paragraph:

Universities are wrong, in Dinham's view, to "regard themselves as 'post-religious', which is taken to mean secular and therefore neutral. We want society more generally to think more about religion as something happening within it. Universities are well placed to lead that wider conversation."

What I don't like so much are the comments at the end. It's pretty bad when the only comment worth reading is

hello everyone,im wholesale supplier online

Welcome to our website

===== =======

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

The only comments on the entire internet worth reading are posted on this blog.

klatu said...

This debate may shortly be coming to an unexpected and abrupt end!

What history, science and religion thought not possible has happened which may leave religious 'tradition' starring into the abyss and humble all secular speculation on the nature of ultimate reality.

Check it out at

JB in CA said...


I can imagine how difficult this seer/prophet thing must be, so I skimmed through your new revelation and came up with a few suggestions. I hope they're helpful.

First, I'd remove all the quotations from the classic authors—Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, etc.—and return them to their original texts, so as to avoid misinterpretation. Let the experts take care of that (

Next, I'd remove the Gnostic quotations and send them back for another vote to their curators at the Jesus Seminar. It wouldn't offend them. They'd be happy just to hear that someone took notice of their scholarship ( PYDiaK7DUiacyKUzyaP37D_MDua_eyD5PcOiUr).

Then, I'd remove the line drawing (along with the sexually explicit advice) and send it to the former dean of Harvard Divinity School. His research seems to focus on that sort of thing (

Next, I'd remove the references to numerology, technology, the internet, etc. and send them to The History Channel ( Who knows? The good folks working on the next installment of "History's Mysteries: The Bible Code" might be able to work them in.

Then, I'd remove the quotations from the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls and hang on to them for future reference. You never know; they might come in handy as background information (

Finally, I'd restore the Biblical quotations to their original context and, in the section titled "The Resurrection", I'd include some verses that actually discuss the Resurrection. They're not all that difficult to understand (

And, oh yes, I'd also do something about the erratic treatment of the plural possessive, particularly in the opening sections. Those pesky apostrophes are so difficult to keep track of.

I think you'll find that these modest suggestions should improve your new revelation significantly and result in a version that's much more likely to "humble all secular speculation on the nature of ultimate reality". Better yet, you might want to save yourself some time and simply ditch the new revelation altogether for the old one (

P.S. Changing the spelling of your alias was clever, but you can't fool me. I know who you really are (

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

We offer a SWNIDish welcome to all latter-day prophets.

rob said...

JB: That was amazing

JB in CA said...

Thanks, Rob. I figured it was unlikely klatu would appreciate it, but it's nice to know someone did.