Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

‘Ockham’s Razor’, a program about science or a soapbox for prejudice?

By Peter Sellick - posted Tuesday, 5 January 2010


Ponder takes the usual potshot at the church by mentioning the sorry treatment of Galileo at the hands of the Vatican, but this was not as simple as it is made to look. Galileo had support from key figures in the Vatican and his trial was more an example of conflicting egos than an illustration that Christianity was anti science. As David Hart points out in his Atheist Delusions “in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Christian scientists educated in Christian universities and following a Christian tradition of scientific and mathematical speculation overturned a pagan cosmology and physics, and arrived at conclusions that would have been unimaginable within the confines of the Hellenistic traditions”.

It is just not good enough to raise the spectre of the trial of Galileo to prove that Christianity is essentially antagonistic to natural science. Ponder is exposed as intellectually lazy in adopting second hand opinions that suit his purposes without any attempt to investigate them further.

One could very easy write a similar polemic against natural science and it would be just as irrational. All we need to do is to point to the results of atheism in the French revolution, communist Russia, China and the other various crackpot regimes around the world and conclude that atheism brings mass murder, starvation and persecution. Similarly, we could point to Darwinian evolution as the basis for the Nazi eugenics program that ended the life of thousands of individuals who were “not worthy of life”. It seems from a reading of the bloody history of the 20th century we have far more to fear from atheism and natural science that has been used to achieve terrible ends. However, we do not reach the conclusion that natural science is evil.

Advertisement

Religion is seen as such an easy target that no effort at all is required to pull it down. All the old hackneyed arguments are enough to demolish the whole structure. No original research or thinking is required. Ponder worries that the religious may become powerful enough to restrict the great project of science. How limp an excuse for deriding the religious. Creationism and intelligent design have been easily seen off and Islamic fundamentalism has yet to find a toe-hold in the education systems of the West.

I expect more from the ABC than this drivel. This is not about balance, it is about quality, quality of research and ideas. Robyn Williams has let the side down by inviting someone who will grind his axe for him.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

106 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Sellick an Anglican deacon working in Perth with a background in the biological sciences.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Sellick

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Sellick
Article Tools
Comment 106 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy