Australian philosopher, literary critic, legal scholar, and professional writer. Based in Newcastle, NSW. My latest books are THE TYRANNY OF OPINION: CONFORMITY AND THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM (2019) and AT THE DAWN OF A GREAT TRANSITION: THE QUESTION OF RADICAL ENHANCEMENT (2021).
An excellent piece, very clearly argued.
I was a bit puzzled as to why the link in the sentence:
"Perhaps inevitably, this has produced its own backlash."
was to "Voices of Disbelief"; I was expecting a link to someone exemplifying the anti-New Atheist backlash.
A good read, in particular:
It is pretty much inevitable that theologians and philosophers will draw conclusions based on empirical facts obtained by scientists and others.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion demand that this be allowed to happen without interference from the state.
While the American courts cannot stop this, they can certainly stop public schools teaching the relevant theological and philosophical doctrines directly and as matters of fact. The courts can insist that public schools simply teach the science (or history, or whatever the subject may be), and allow its theological or anti-theological implications, if any, to be debated elsewhere.
Very well said. Thanks for sharing.
Sounds like one of the links was attached to the wrong text, Greg.
Yup, I've just checked where it was linking from in the article as I submitted it, and have asked for it to be changed back. Greg is right: it doesn't make sense linking from the current words.
Thank you for that response essay. While I expect your points on Gnu-bashing will go unheard, hopefully I will never again have to hear the ridiculous claim that science violates the US first amendment.
Excellent piece. I too was surprised by the link; good that it's fixed.
Great article! Thanks for writing it.
Post a Comment