Tue, Oct 14, 2008

User login

Shvitz Search


Jewcy Book Club

Welcome Authors
Mike Edison
&
Rabbi Levi Brackman and Sam Jaffe
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
  • 10/20:
    Jonathan Garfinkel
  • 10/21:
    Rabbi Robert Levine
  • 10/27:
    Danit Brown
  • 10/28:
    Joshua Henkin
  • 11/04:
    Craig Glazer
  • 11/11:
    Max Gross
  • 11/17:
    Seth Greenland

Contribute


Featured Book

Featured Album



DAILY SHVITZ
How to Say Nothing in 864 Words
TAGS:

The best thing that could happen to evangelical Christianity -- not to mention orthodox Judaism or, deo volente, radical Islam -- would be the arrival of an ironical and winning antagonist of evolution. Listening to the faithful grow ever more insecure, make a complete hash of science, and furiously try to Brillo away the color and brilliance of 300 years of Enlightenment thinking, has got me wishing that some charismatic rabbi, the one from Northern Exposure, say, will infilitrate the op-ed pages and cable news channels to argue from wit as much from design.

Instead, what we get are photos of serene beachscapes, turning foliage, righteous white noise read as wisdom, and essays like this one from Sen. Sam Brownback:

It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

A theory developed according to the scientific method has no philosophical presupposition; philosophy follows from the aggregration of determined fact. Steven Pinker may say that evolutionary psychology is actually an uplifting explanation for human behavior, but he'd be a bad scientist if it were not uplifting and for that reason alone he discounted it as an explanation.

Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

Reason says that human beings are conceived through sexual intercourse and birthed after about a 9-month gestation period in the womb of a post-pubescent female. Faith says a winged apparition descended from the sky and implanted a human fetus inside the virgin womb of a bronze age Jewess. Here's what the word "supplement" means:

1 a : something that completes or makes an addition b : DIETARY SUPPLEMENT
2 : a part added to or issued as a continuation of a book or periodical to correct errors or make additions
3 : an angle or arc that when added to a given angle or arc equals 180°

I need a vitamin supplement after this graph:

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order.

The number one film at the box office this weekend is likely to be about how man is repeatedly an accident, brought on by alcohol, low inhibitions and even lower feminine standards. And Brownback has enough physiological attributes in common with a Silverback gorilla that even the most fanciful definition of "likeness" cannot disqualify them.



Michael is a contributing editor of Jewcy. His work has appeared in Slate, Gawker, New York, Democratiya, The New Criterion and The Weekly Standard. His blog is Snarksmith.


More...

Josh Strawn


Suckers

I like Dennett's definition of science as the technology of truth.  The god-bashing whitebeard always uses the instance of his literary studies buddy coming to him 'shopping for an epistemology.'  Jerks like Brownback are exploiting Wittgensteinian, Searlian debates about whether language corresponds to reality, whether philosophy, which is inherently linguistic, can be said to accurately relate and describe facts in the world.  They zero in language and also on epistemological debate, which is why postmodernism and theology marry easily.  It is said that every philosophy must have a metaphysic.  I can't remember which philosopher of mind pointed this out--it was either one of the Churchlands or Nancy Andreasen--that the separation of the physics from the metaphysics was the fault of those who edited Aristotle's works.  The title 'Metaphysics,' simply meant 'after physics,' as in the book following 'The Physics,' or 'Physics Vol. II.'  What 'The Metaphyics' represents are Aristotles musings on what was not YET apprehended within his understanding of physics.   He never intended to say that a realm of knowledge untouchable or unknowable by science existed.  But the Brownbacks of the world assume that their deeply rooted unconscious usage of Platonic and Aristotelian (and sundry other) ideas are simply truths, not problematic marriages of sometimes contradictory philosophies that have a start date and an originary brain. 

Dennett: "The sad fact is that in some intellectual circles, inhabited by some of our more advanced thinkers in the arts and humanities, this attitude passes as a sophisticated appreciation of the futility of proof and the relativity of all knowledge claims. In fact this opinion, far from being sophisticated, is the height of sheltered naiveté, made possible only by flatfooted ignorance of the proven methods of scientific truth-seeking and their power. Like many another naif, these thinkers, reflecting on the manifest inability of their methods of truth-seeking to achieve stable and valuable results, innocently generalize from their own cases and conclude that nobody else knows how to discover the truth either. ...The irony is that these fruits of scientific reflection, showing us the ineliminable smudges of imperfection, are sometimes used by those who are suspicious of science as their grounds for denying it a privileged status in the truth-seeking department--as if the institutions and practices they see competing with it were no worse off in these regards. But where are the examples of religious orthodoxy being simply abandoned in the face of irresistible evidence? Again and again in science, yesterday's heresies have become today's new orthodoxies. No religion exhibits that pattern in its history."     





Anonymous


I just read that all in one

I just read that all in one go and I feel like I need to eat some chunky monkey ice cream. why is that?