tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post842767669344963528..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Unneccessary ouster by Royal SocietySalman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-53464701911340407422008-10-02T21:14:00.000-04:002008-10-02T21:14:00.000-04:00The Reiss Affair – a Matter of Intellectual Integr...The Reiss Affair – a Matter of Intellectual Integrity<BR/>Various letters, such as that from the Bishop of Lincoln (Guardian) etc, contain a significant amount of self-righteous criticism of the Royal Society with regard to the Rev Michael Reiss’s position as Director of Science Education. It is clear that there is almost total ignorance about the fundamental issues involved and an abysmal understanding of Science – the culture that created the modern world – from anaesthetics and penicillin to jet engines, mobile phones and the Internet. Of course “The Origin of the Universe and Living Organisms” is a perfectly respectable question for the Science lesson (perhaps the most exciting and fundamental one) - as long as someone with Intellectual Integrity is there to answer it! There is a major problem however for the religious person, scientist or otherwise, in answering this question and it involves, first and foremost, Intellectual Integrity.<BR/><BR/>Let me clarify the fundamental philosophical issue - The Scientific Mindset: Science is based solely on doubt-based, disinterested, examination of the natural and physical world. It is entirely independent of personal belief. There is a very important, fundamental concomitant - that is to accept absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, for which there is no evidence, as having any FUNDAMENTAL validity. A lemma: One can of course have an infinite number of questions but only those questions that can be formulated in such a way that they can be subjected to detailed disinterested examination, and when so subjected reveal unequivocally and ubiquitously accepted data, may be significant.<BR/><BR/>The plethora of more-or-less incompatible religious concepts that mankind has invented from Creationism and Intelligent Design to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology, Hinduism, Shinto, Shamanism etc., etc., etc., are all basically indistinguishable, from the Freethinker’s perspective. It really does not matter whether someone believes a mystical entity created the Universe five thousand or ten thousand million years ago - both are equally irrational unsubstantiated claims of no fundamental validity. Unfortunately Michael Reiss who is, according to reports, a nice guy, was just in the wrong job. He, together with all religious people – whether they like it or not, whether they accept it or not - fall at the first hurdle of the main requirement for honest philosophical scientific discussion because they accept unfound dogma as having fundamental significance. Note that I did not say value (positive or negative!). In the Jeffersonian sense Church and State (including education especially on Sundays) must be separated - otherwise our democratic freedoms are undermined. A secular socio-political framework is an absolutely necessary (though unfortunately not always sufficient) condition to guarantee freedom of religion - as well as freedom of non-religion. <BR/><BR/>I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs - for all I know the President of the Royal Society may be religious. However I, and many Royal Society colleagues, do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education – this is a totally different issue. An ordained minister must have accepted that there is a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) and thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface. An ordained minister cannot have his religious cake in church on Sunday and eat a scientific one with intellectually vulnerable kids in the classroom on weekdays. This is where the Intellectual Integrity issue arises – and it is the crucial aspect in the Reiss Affair. <BR/><BR/>I suggest that the Rev Reiss, the Bishop of Lincoln and any others who presume the authority to dictate how religious issues should be handled in the science classroom read from Sam Harris's book "Letter to a Christian Nation" at their Sunday sermons. Then perhaps some of their flock may understand what Intellectual Integrity and true humanity actually involve. Furthermore I suggest that this wonderful little book be a set text for young people at Sunday School, so they recognise that the really dangerous people can include the religious who are hell-bent on dragging us back into the Dark Ages, rather than the Freethinking Humanists who are struggling to save the democratic freedoms of “The Enlightenment” for our grandchildren. The Pope is the 21st Century disciple of Cardinal Bellarmine.<BR/><BR/>Sir Harold KrotoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-79221192612222771272008-09-18T15:51:00.000-04:002008-09-18T15:51:00.000-04:00Oh I agree that the resignation was not appropriat...Oh I agree that the resignation was not appropriate. But I have some sympathy with the RS. The problem is that it's a genie out of the bottle. I don't think you can return to the untarnished state. We're talking PR here, not common sense! If he wasn't an ordained minister, then his statements wouldn't be so easy to exploit. But he is and they have been and, well, it's difficult for him to be a figurehead for education. But yes, the RS should've shown more backbone.Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-24756392353437924542008-09-17T12:46:00.000-04:002008-09-17T12:46:00.000-04:00Since when is that the kind of thing that leads to...Since when is that the kind of thing that leads to a resignation? What happened to the "official retraction" or the "apology press conference"?hedgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07002804980576789573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-61078343924892773122008-09-17T11:48:00.000-04:002008-09-17T11:48:00.000-04:00But I think this is where a clarification was need...But I think this is where a clarification was needed not calls for his resignation. And yes we expect creationists to take words out of context and then exploit them. Even Dawkin's words about Cambrian explosion have been taken out of context: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history". This was a set-up to start a chapter. Reiss' statement is clearly worse than this, but when we clearly know the context, we should not let creationist exploitation lead to rash decisions.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-58755592439572904632008-09-17T06:54:00.000-04:002008-09-17T06:54:00.000-04:00A complication is that it's not what Reiss believe...A complication is that it's not what Reiss believes, but what people think he believes. As a result of some loose wording, creationists are now using his name and role to support their case. So his reputation is damaged, and he's caused a lot of confusion and muddle. Rumour mills being what they are, it's hard to say whether it can ever be repaired.Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.com