Noch schnell ein Tipp: Vielleicht habt ihr Sahotra Sarkars Review von Steve Fullers* Buch 'Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution' schon gelesen, die mit diesem herrlichen Abschnitt endet:
These excursions into fancy allow me to end on a positive note: the lack of depth or insight in this book is more than compensated by the entertainment it provides, at least to a philosopher or historian of science. No one should begrudge us our simple pleasures. I'm happy to have read this book, and even more so not to have paid for it.Fuller hat auf UD darauf geantwortet (tl;dr), vor gemeinen Kommentaren durch WA Dembskis Verbannungsmächte geschützt ("I’m paying special attention to this thread so that only civil, thoughtful comments are entered. “Physicalist,” whoever s/he was, is no longer with us.").
Nun gibt es eine Review von Fullers neuem Buch 'Dissent over Descent' von AC Grayling für The New Humanist.
Grayling kann Fullers neues Buch nicht wirklich lustig finden, dazu hat er offensichtlich beim Lesen zu sehr gelitten. Sein einleitender Absatz:
It is sometimes hard to know whether books that strike one as silly and irresponsible, like Dissent over Descent, the latest book from Steve Fuller, are the product of a desire to strike a pose and appear outrageous (the John Gray syndrome), or really do represent that cancer of the contemporary intellect, post-modernism. I suppose putatively sincere extrusions of the post-modern sensibility might henceforth deserve to be known as “the Steve Fuller syndrome”. For this offering by the American-born sociologist is a classic case of the absurdity to which that sensibility leads.LOL.
Auch darauf hat Fuller geantwortet [The New Humanist], mit dem üblichen Geheule, Grayling hätte sein Buch weder gelesen, noch verstanden.
Grayling hat eine Erwiderung geschrieben und dabei nun wirklich die Glacé-Handschuhe ausgezogen: 'Bolus of Nonsense' [The New Humanist]. Mir hat vor allem dieser Abschnitt gefallen, aber es ist in seiner Gänze lesenswert (wie auch seine ursprüngliche Review):
Fuller's endeavour turns in important part on trying to show that science is the child of religion, that its styles of thought are religion's styles, and that the very coherence of the scientific enterprise owes itself to the grand narrative of the religious world-view. Still wishing to spare those forests threatened by the epigones of ID theory and the time-wasting involved in rebutting it, I offer the words of no less an authority than Cardinal Bellarmine, written in 1615 to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, who had tried to show that Copernican heliocentrism is consistent with Vatican doctrine: "As you are aware," so Bellarmine wrote, "the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common opinion of the holy Fathers. Now if you will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed, and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider then, in your prudence, whether the Church can tolerate that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek."MfG,
"Consider in your prudence": indeed. This was a decade and a half after Giordano Bruno was burned to death in Rome's Campo dei Fiori for having among his many alleged turpitudes an adherence to the Copernican view; four years before Cesare Vanini died at the stake in Toulouse in 1619 for the same reasons; and just less than another decade and a half before Galileo escaped their fate by denying that the earth moves. (Such are just the salient names.) Copernicus's De Revolutionibus found its way onto the Index of Forbidden Books.
The Vatican, by the way, formally apologised for its prosecution of Galileo on 31 October 1992. The apology came four centuries late; science had long since moved far on. Yet Fuller thinks that science springs from religion. Before you think this is mere absurdity, remember it is because Fuller has to bend and muddle things round so that an ancient creation myth can be fitted into jeans and a t-shirt and made to look hot. This is not ignorance and stupidity: this is trahison d'un clerc.
* Steve Fuller ist der neue Liebling der IDler und besonders der UDler, die sich freuen, mal wieder einen neuen Deppen gefunden zu haben, der auf ihren Blödsinn reingefallen ist.