Re: This jerk is at it again
- From: "Ben Standeven" <berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Apr 2007 15:05:12 -0700
On Apr 5, 11:08 am, "Jim Hinckley" wrote:
The age of reason
Jim Hinckley
A Return to Common Sense
A recent column in this series that questioned whether classical
physics was transcending from science to religion touched a nerve or
two. After careful consideration, it seemed a response and
clarification were in order.
Though I am strongly opinionated, providing validity to any one
opinion, mine, or anyone else's is not the goal of this series. From
its inception, the concept behind this column was to provide material
for water cooler conversation, to spark discussion on controversial
topics and, perhaps, encourage people to question, to think.
I did not intend to attempt to prove or disprove the field of physics
in a recent column. In a very limited space, I wanted to make it known
that though it is widely accepted, the concept of thermodynamics is
largely stuck in the realm of theory couched in scientific terminology
and that to accept it without question requires a certain degree of
faith, the same substance that underpins religion.
In religion, those who question foundational precepts are branded
heretics. What happens to lay people or even men of science who
question how chemicals and minerals in all their complexity can spring
from a proper mixing of atoms and molecules or dare to suggest there
appears to be intelligent design behind the motions of the planets?
Even though the study of physics is largely scientific in nature,
there are philosophical aspects, and as with religion, those aspects
have far-reaching ramifications. Though the evidence is all around us,
we often tend to forget this simple premise: Behind every government,
behind every society, there is an underlying philosophy.
Consider this: The largest slaughters in history took place during the
20th century. Underpinning the most horrendous was not religion in the
traditional sense but a firm belief there was no God, that one race or
creed of man was inferior to another, that the wisdom of man could
engineer a better society.
The theory, science, or philosophies of classical physics may not have
been to blame, but they were manipulated and utilized. The foundation
of the holocaust of Nazi Germany was an inherent belief that a modern
society had an obligation to weed out the degenerate and the decayed.
The horrors of the killing fields in Cambodia, the cold hopelessness
that is the fruit of communism, all have as their foundation a
philosophy devoid of the concept that there is a God.
In this modern age of reason, questioning the tenets of classical
physics is likened to a public proclamation of ignorance, and
advocating the importance of religion, specifically Christianity, is
viewed as a danger. All of this is symptomatic of a society where the
concept of absolute truth is perceived an antiquated one embraced only
by the foolish or poorly educated at best and an outright threat and
danger at worst.
Without absolute truth, however, all that is left is theory,
conjecture, and even whimsical guesses. A legal system or institutions
of government operating without a foundation of truth would be
confusing, chaotic, and schizophrenic in nature.
In such a world, tolerance of anything and everything with the
exception of anything or anyone that proclaimed there were absolute
truths would be a virtue, and the individual would dictate codes of
morality.
Imagine how confusing life would be in a society where slaughtering
murderers mere hours before a pardon arrives is deemed a right but
killing them before they can be wired into the chair is murder.
Imagine an educational system that teaches children of the evils of
tobacco, a legal narcotic substance, but encourages the same students
to embrace gun ownership, a lifestyle that results in an average life
expectancy lower than that of a smoker.
What would it be like to live in a society where a child in the womb
has more legal protection than a child in the cradle? Would a
generation infused with a belief that death is little more than a
great cosmic accident, that self-gratification trumps self sacrifice
and that there are no boundaries in regards to morality be inclined to
care for the elderly, the sick or the weak?
How would a society feel if laws were based on public opinion rather
than the rule of law based on truth? If the government grants laws,
could not that same government rescind those rights?
I suppose in my column on physics that created such a stir the focus
should not have been on whether the theory was science or religion but
whether that theory taken to its logical conclusion was a boon or
curse to society.
As noted, my purpose behind this series is not to justify a particular
opinion. Rather, it is to encourage thought in the hope that we can
again, in the not to distant future, enjoy a new age of reason.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: This jerk is at it again
- From: Rolf
- Re: This jerk is at it again
- References:
- This jerk is at it again
- From: Dr.GH
- This jerk is at it again
- Prev by Date: Re: Ancient appeance not equal deception
- Next by Date: Re: How do angels look like and how do they helps us?
- Previous by thread: Re: This jerk is at it again - Oops - I overlooked the source
- Next by thread: Re: This jerk is at it again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
