... there is an extreme at which engagement with a view ... is to give it credibility.

Is that because the "engagement" is one-sided, and all it achieves is drawing "names" into propaganda?

Such views are to be fought.

Absolutely, but how with a lack of engagement?

Great points Mark as ever. I think that one fights it initially for hearts and minds, and with the Law. We have legislation on Racism and also on conspiracy for terrorism. It seems to me that the hate based outpourings of the religious right should be as subject to control as that of extreme muslim clerics or racists. If that fails then on the streets as people did in London in the 30s and I and others did in the 70's against the national front.

In the movements toward increasing complexity (wholeness) mankind 'staggers' mainly forwards - driven at the edge of a 'ragged vortex' or 'staircase' -- A 'take' on some Goethe out of some recent learning from At de Lange, who could practice what many teach (sic) when it came to Socratic dialogue (all imho of course ;-)

Andrew

Can't believe you missed the opportunity to note the opening of the first ever "Creationism Museum." No, sadly, this is not a celebration of a belief relegated to the 'ash-heap of history' - but an attempt to Disnefy the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/05/28/EDGFKQ1SI91.DTL

I did, I did, see here

I am struggling with Jerry Ravetz' 'the no-nonsense guide to science' at the moment and the concept of post-normal science. I am not entirely convinced that there ever was a normal science, or that there was a golden age when scientists got their inference or statistical analysis right, but the idea of saying that things are now different is dangerous.
The view that we need to get away from science OR religion is very important, though.

I think it will be helpful if we acknowledge the old distinction of truth, reality, and beauty. It's just different (orthogonal) dimensions, and science (like economics - I don't want to expand to (transcendent) religion here) is moral-free. Which is good(!) news since any argument based upon science intrinsically lacks the moral dimension. Science does not include ethics; Scientific reasoning alone is not ethical, it's just something different.
And this means that when it comes to politics (yet another dimension) - yes, there are limits to tolerance, of course, and they have noting to do with science or (transcendent aspects of) religion. They have to do with politics, that is.

Another topic: "Or" is a very very tricky word. The common language meaning of "and" often corresponds to what OR means in Boolean logic. And natural language "or" often means Boolean XOR (meaning: A is fine, B is fine, AB is not, nothing is not). Thus, what does "Science or Religion" mean?. Add to this the trouble with undeclared assumptions of Tertium non datur. Messy, very messy.

Can science disappear? No, but it is in danger of becoming less relevant. Scientific thinking is a particular worldview, there were times (and there are places today) where it did exist, but only at the fringe of society. Not really important. It just competes with other worldviews, and it may lose. In the US mainstream culture, fundamentalistic religion is just as unscientific as Hollywood or the factories (I would not want to call them universities) that produce the MBAs. There are places where the importance of science (scientific thinking) is growing - growth is easier is you start lower. And elsewhere it roughly stays the same (Germany where I live, Switzerland where I work).

Yeah, on principle, maybe it isn't such a good idea to elect presidents who believe in Armageddon.

I love one of the multitude of Blaise Pascal's quotes: "People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than by those found by others."

I am far from being an expert on the philosohpical arguments behind the science/religion debate, but the quote in Dave's post refers mainly to positivistic science "...the underlying harmony of the Universe was accessible by observation and experiment ...".

It seems to me that most religious arguments (arguments, not blind predjudices) are more on the side of science than the post-positivists are who claim to be in that same camp as them.

I agree that we need to win the masses. We would be wise to do that with rational debate and clear argument. This requires us to to gently expose and categorise the ideas and assumptions behind people's beliefs, and keep well away from emotional viewpoints like those put forward in Dan Brown's novels and in the use of straw-men and other manipulative tactics.

Yes, it requires us to go over simple truths again and again as each person walks their journey, but civility and patience have always been beneficial to understanding and respectful debate.

Once you take the biased statements away, both Dawkins and the ultra religious right don't have that much to add. And don't worry Dave, there are plenty of modern day Aquinas's working within the faiths to rescue reason and the evidence of observation. Science isn't going away any time soon.

I agree with most of what you say Stuart, within limits! I think there is a point where apologists for the anti-science view, especially where it is linked with extreme intolerance (as is the case with the American Taliban) use reasoned argument to provide space and opportunity for their ideas to spread. Hence by reference to the Weimar Republic.

I would be interested as to names in respect of who you would consider a modern day Aquinas.