RE: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautionary Principle

@ You are attempting to make sense out of the incoherent behavior of
those who have been indoctrinated by 60's radicals into the
philosophical views of Herbert Marcuse. See my post last Thursday,
in response to what someone else wrote on the subject here:

He wrote: "When truth is relative, tolerance becomes supreme." ~ fatez

I responsed: But "genuine tolerance" is to be intolerant of what
these omnipotent busibodies call, "repressive speech".

Today's schools and university campuses are filled with those who
have been indoctrinated by Marcusian Marxist professors, specifically.

You can recognize them by how they justify their attempts at
silencing those with whom they disagree. Herbert Marcuse is where
they get their convoluted fascistic ideas about "tolerance" and set
themselves up as the ones who get to define what the word
"repressive" means (as in: "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"):

In Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance", Marcuse
argues that genuine tolerance does not tolerate support for
repression, since doing so ensures that marginalized voices will
remain unheard. He characterizes tolerance of repressive speech as
"inauthentic." Instead, he advocates a discriminating tolerance that
does not allow repressive intolerance to be voiced.

53 posted on 01/25/2007 2:44:47 PM EST by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1773613/posts?page=53#53

More at this link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1773613/posts

So, once you understand the sort of "logic" you're up
against, you'll know why your attempts to reason with such
mentalities is like rifing in a boat with a one-armed
boat-rower. Save your breath - they are "true believers."

~ Janice

At 07:52 AM 1/27/2007, Jon Tandy wrote:
>Let's take a different (hypothetical) example. If Gonzales had written a
>book on why he, as a scientist, believes that miraculous healing is real,
>and points to an Intelligent Healer. He gives evidence of real examples
>where (he believes) faith is the most likely and logical explanation for all
>sorts of documented healings, the fact that some scientific studies have
>shown prayer to increase the chances on faster recovery, etc. His book
>deals with scientific and medical fields, from an aspect of faith that these
>evidences support a theistic view, and his book is then used by "faith
>healing" religious groups to popularize their particular views.
>
>Then the professors of the medical college sign a petition drive stating
>their "concern with the negative impact of faith healing on the integrity of
>science and the medical college"; that they "reject all attempts to
>represent faith as having any bearing on the science of medicine"; that such
>claims are "based on selection of arbitrary examples, unverifiable
>assertions of healings, and abandonment of good medical practice, which can
>be explained without reference to any supernatural being"; "claims of faith
>healing are within the realm of faith and not good medical practice"; "and
>we thus urge all faculty members [nudge, nudge!] to reject any efforts to
>portray faith as a component of medical healing"; and then circulate this
>statement to the "relevant media" for publication.
>
>They certainly have the academic freedom and 1st Amendment rights to
>circulate anything they desire to print. But what are they contending
>against? They are contending against the right of one professor to write on
>a subject expressing his faith which touches on areas of medicine but also a
>belief that God impacts our world in ways that are real and observable. For
>_his_ exercise of 1st Amendment rights, he is slapped down by his employer
>and berated through the media and his colleagues, and told that you as a
>"faculty member" are encouraged not to share your faith in the context of
>medicine (or science) -- save that for Sunday morning church, but not
>publicly by writing a popular book which might make our university look bad.
>Regardless of his attempts to frame the argument in terms of a real medical
>(scientific) context, why do you not see this as a clear example of
>persecution over one's religious beliefs?
>
>It reminds me of 1Cor 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that
>perish, foolishness..." By the same token, he had to have known that his
>publication would infuriate some of his colleagues, so he probably could
>have known to expect some persecution over it.
>
>I don't know all the situation, and whether he was involved in teaching ID
>at the university, or whether it simply had to do with his publication. I
>agree there could certainly be abuses involved with promoting "faith
>healing" as a substitute for good medical practice. Some "faith healing"
>claims (or ID positions) may be non-scientific; they may be flat out wrong,
>or they may belong properly in the category of faith. But certainly there
>is also evidence out there which demands consideration of something beyond
>this material universe. What is the justification for a group of professors
>ganging up on another professor with a blanket denunciation, simply because
>he publishes a book which is about faith and science which they don't like?
>
>My example likened their "abandonment of methodological naturalism" with a
>hypothetical "abandonment of good medical practice". I think the comparison
>is fair. Methodological naturalism is seen as good scientific practice, and
>even most believing scientists agree. Why is an expression of faith
>necessarily damaging to or contradictory of good scientific practice? I
>thought ASA was all about promoting faith along with good science, not
>relegating them to separate corners where scientists aren't allowed to speak
>of faith. Yes, bad science in ID should be exposed in a loving and
>evidence-based manner, but how can others expose and expand on such
>arguments (in a faith promoting way) if they aren't allowed to express the
>beliefs publicly in the first place?
>
>
>Jon Tandy
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>Behalf Of PvM
>Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:47 AM
>To: Ted Davis
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu; Janice Matchett; David Opderbeck
>Subject: Re: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the
>Precautionary Principle
>
>
>So what you consider to be outrageous is that the petition was organized by
>an atheist or by someone who is a faculty advisor to a campus atheist
>organization? Remember that intelligent design is making the (erroneous)
>claim that it is scientific and that these scientific findings point to a
>'designer' (wink wink). Many science organizations have rejected ID as
>scientifically relevant. So what if Avalos had been a Christian? Would that
>have made a difference to the petition? When atheists start a movement which
>insists that science can show the absence of a designer, it is time to
>object similarly to such an abuse of science. Privileged Planet has become
>an important marketing tool for the Intelligent Design movement, intent on
>'teaching the controversy' which is mere code language. So what about
>Avalos's academic freedom to expose bad science?
>
>
>Gonzalez
>
><quote>"I didn't expect this level of vitriol," he says after hanging up.
>"This level of intense hostility, just knee-jerk emotional response from
>people. People have strong convictions that you can't bring God into
>science. But I don't bring God into science. I've looked out at nature and
>discovered this pattern, based on empirical evidence. . . . It obviously
>calls for a different explanation."</quote>
>
>And Gonzalez claims that this explanation is 'God' based on the arguments of
>Intelligent Design. Or is that not obvious? So the question is: Are these
>arguments based on science and scientific arguments. Many scientists have
>come to the conclusion that these findings are vacuous and that intelligent
>design fails to be scientifically relevant. Combine this with the attempts
>by the Discovery Institute to promote this 'research' as evidence why
>intelligent design should be taught or could be taught in schools and one
>can either ignore this or take a stance. Many scientific organizations and
>even universities have done so.
>
>A witchhunt? I am not sure.
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 27 11:54:40 2007