It was interesting to me to see how much traffic and anonymous comments the brief post on Ann Coulter’s new book,
Godless, has prompted. Anonymous comments are not the norm for this
blog, nor for the Homeschool Blogger community. Curious, I did some
digging, and discovered that a link to this post was included in the internet infidels discussion board website … the discussion board of the “secular web”
whose Google description states its purpose is to provide an “online
community of nonbelievers dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge,
understanding and tolerance.”
However, the anonymous
comments to the Godless post have not been knowledgeable,
understanding, or tolerant of those who are not secular.
One commenter suggested my position is that we outlaw science
since I stated that “origins is a unique, historic event that cannot be
observed and repeated, so science has no business commenting on it.” It
seems that non- secularists have more understanding of the basic
definition of science than the knowledgeable secularists, even though
on the main page of the secular web the definition of naturalism is correctly stated.
Science, in its most fundamental definition,
makes statements and draws conclusions about that which can be observed
and repeated by other scientists, in order to pass the test of peer
review, in order for those statements and conclusions to be confirmed
as “knowledge.” The importance of peer review, of observability and
repeatability as a fundamental principle of all I would do as a
research scientist, was drummed into my head at a secular, state-
funded university as a science major.
Naturalism is not science
(or operational science as it is historically understood). It is a
philosophy devoted to the premise that nothing outside of nature or the
physical world affects nature or the physical world, or has ever
affected nature or the physical world. It must accept unprovable axioms
as foundational tenets, which define it as philosophy and not as
science. Its axioms must be believed by faith, since they are not
provable. Belief in something by faith is the definition of religion.
As to whether Coulter made a factual error
in her book, if so, then she should issue a correction. But I wonder
how many who are critical of her have actually read her book, or if
they are reporting what others have said she said out of context. (I
haven’t read her book yet myself, and just quoted her Human Events
article.) We don’t know, but it would make an interesting survey,
wouldn’t it?
3 thoughts on “Godless post prompts reaction”
Good for you for sticking to your guns!! I haven’t read her book either, but have long believed that Darwinism is actually a religion. I just don’t have the time, or talent to write a book about it!!
Those who take her literally obviously have not read anything that AC has ever written. She writes with a sharp wit and sarcasm to deliver her point.
FYI, “Anonymous”, the statement she made about students being ‘required’ to wear t-shirts is just a sarcastic reference to the controversy involving the boy who actually DID wear a t-shirt that said homosexuality is shameful, and was put through the wringer for it by the good old ACLU.
BTW, I’m sure you know, you can disallow anonymous comments in your preferences if they get too ugly.
Seminar Bloggers now, sheesh! Have they nothing better to do?
Lisa
I have my book on order.
You’ve in essence, hit the heart of the matter. Too many people make comments about writings etc. without actually reading them. I’m glad to see you acknowledge this. Let’s take it one step further. I’ve sat in on church sermons with Pastors who take their sermons from–you won’t believe this–Christian novels. They can’t be bothered, as is with most Christians, to read the Bible from cover to cover and therefore are preaching based on second hand information. Wouldn’t it be a lovely world if everyone thoroughly read from the source before making any comments? I’m certain a lot of people would blush with shame if they read the Bible in its completion. It’s horrendous what people claim is in there that isn’t–or what isn’t in there that is. I’m glad you read the woman’s paper and have a thorough knowledge of the scientific genre with which to back up your opinions. Well done.