Martin Lord Rees apparently said this recently, in a speech about science and religion "'You can imagine eco-groups who imagine the world would be better off without human beings. We need to combat these new irrationalities and,..."
Now I'm not sure that this is irrational. It seems to me that it is a perfectly rational belief based on good evidence. What is not rational is to use the word 'rational' rhetorically, like that, as a way to maintain a fig-leaf of humanism. I'm seriously worried now that we can't have a rational debate with some of the scientific community because of unacknowledged comments to a-rational basic thinking tools and inadequately founded notions of morality.
Scientists divided over alliance with religion | Science | Guardian Unlimited:
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christian England? Maybe not...
I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
No comments:
Post a Comment