All CATEGORIES
☰ Menu
Blog of Mass Destruction

Goldilocks And The Scientists

By The Reverend Published: April 26, 2014

I often criticize, and justifiably, corporate media's modern habit of "both sides do it" "journalism." In this perversion of what we used to call reporting, no matter how extreme or obstructionistic Republicans have been these last 5+ years.....corporate reporting informs us constantly that both Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault.

I call this new media paradigm the "gutless" method. Rather than point out the actual facts of any given political issue, like, say, new voter ID laws and the non-existent voter fraud "problem", professional "reporters" inform us of what Republicans say..."we're protecting the integrity of the voting process"....and what Democrats say...."there is no voter fraud problem and voter ID laws will disenfranchise poorer voters".....and refuse to tell readers or viewers which one of those two is based in fact, and which isn't.

To explain that Republicans are actually gaming the system to trim Democratic votes would be "taking sides." And modern journalism is just too objective and pure-of-motive to take sides.

This leaves modern media in the Goldilocks zone. Neither "side" is correct because, you know, political bias makes them both too hot or too cold. Only Goldilocks journalism has it just right.

Former George W. Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, has a new article in the Washington Post which the Beacon reprinted this morning. The piece is entitled "The strange tension between theology and science." In it, Gerson brings the Goldilocks principle to the "debate" between religion and science over the Big Bang Theory.

The former Bushie, like good, respectable modern corporate writers do now, pretends that both "sides" of the discussion about the birth of the universe are a bit misguided.

First, the conservative "side"....

If theological conservatives define themselves by their skepticism about the (marvelous, breathtaking, compelling) findings of modern science, they will eventually lose — not only in public debates but in the minds of their own children.

See, Michael Gerson believes in science and the scientific method...and those on the right who hold firmly to their skepticism of science "will eventually lose."

Then, the scientific "side"....

There is no philosophical or theological method to study the structure of a star or a starfish. But this does not mean that the knowledge revealed by the physical sciences is the only valid type of human knowledge.

See, the scientists have it wrong too because even though fighting upstream against science is a losing battle.....scientists don't know everything either. The writer claims that knowledge as revealed through the scientific method is not the only knowledge.

Again, in the science v religion "debate", only Gerson has it just right, like Goldilocks. Both "sides" have it wrong because, you know, non-objective biases. But not Michael Gerson.....he's the only Goldilocks Centrist in the "debate."

What other kind of "knowledge" is out there that scientists simply disregard?

There is ethical reasoning. There is also theological belief — involving the possibility that the Creator might suspend the laws of nature in certain circumstances, such as the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection.

"Ethical reasoning"......I would argue.....all flows from applying the scientific method to history, anthropology, social sciences and the like. But "theological belief".....has no scientific basis at all. Instead "theological" knowledge requires the suspension of belief in science.

On one hand, scientists carefully observe what's real, submit their findings to peer review....and through a lengthy process of what I'll call scientific cross-examination....eventually share those findings with the general public....that is, if those findings are corroborated and verified.

On the other hand, believers like Michael Gerson, would have us "balance" that proven scientific method with "other knowledge" which includes "the possibility" that "the Creator" might have just suspended the laws of nature at times....."such as the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection."

Clearly, unless you are Michael Goldilocks Gerson, you must be out of balance, so to speak. Because both sides of the science v religion "debate" have it wrong. Both sides are guilty of clinging to their biases.....except the writer, who has it just right....

...the authority of science, denies the possibility of all other types of knowledge — reducing human beings to a bag of chemicals and all their hopes and loves to the firing of neurons. Or when religion exceeds its bounds and declares the Earth to be 6,000 years old. In both cases, the besetting sin is the same: the arrogant exclusive claim to know reality.

That's a big WTF, no?

Scientists don't have all the "knowledge" and "reducing human beings" to what they actually are, "a bag of chemicals" with "neurons firing" in their brains, somehow, "denies the possibility of (other) knowledge"......therefore, scientists are "arrogant" claiming that they alone "know reality."

Religion, on the other hand, sometimes "exceeds it's bounds", for example, when religionists insist the earth is only 6000 years old.

See? Both sides are wrong. Both sides are "sinners".....both sides are "arrogant" exclusively claiming that they, alone, "know reality."

In truth, it is Michael Gerson who is arrogant and smug....who is the elitist. In their desperate quest to find equivalency where none exists, elitist Goldilock-types take a mountain of research and scientific discovery, ....tangible, observable discoveries over centuries, .....and reduce that mountain to the size of a religious molehill built on superstition and the suspension of belief.....make a comparison between the mountain and the molehill.....and then pronounce both sides equally "arrogant" in their equally misguided "biases."

Despite what Village Goldilocks writers claim from their lofty perches of being "just right".....religion and science are not compatible. There's no tension between the two. One is science-based....one is not. Everything we "know" as human beings came from the scientific method...and everything we will "know" in the future will come from that method.

And that is why you will never learn anything from an arrogant, self-righteous Washington Post writer posing as Goldilocks, who speaks of scientists denying "the possibility of all other types of knowledge" with equal disdain as he does towards "6000 year earth" supernaturalists.

In Gerson's Goldilocks adventure-in-logic, the bears maul the featured star.

Print
Add This

SUBSCRIBE VIA RSS

OHIO.COM VIDEOS

About This Blog