There is a compelling and interesting piece in todays NYTimes by Charles Blow that documents Americas continued devotion to the most primitive and uncritical features of religion. To add to this conversation I might simply point to Emma Magentas citation of the prophetic voice of Carl Sagan on her personal page. But I would also proffer this: However much I commend Mr Blows affirmation of his own sons autonomy of conscience and freedom to arrive at his own conclusions I ask, how can he not be conflicted by the fact that religious conviction, which invariably founds its claim upon a desire to feel and to feel good, is incommensurate with the methods of critical thinking? Truth based on facts cannot invest in faith based on assertion and remain honest to the possibility of changing ones mind and developing an evolving human understanding. Our priority of conviction runs counter to our willingness to change our minds when confronted with critically evolved evidence. The American publics recalcitrance to embrace science, which offers some hope for action based on critical, and by definition, secular methodology, foretells our future: we slide further into a superstition-based society ill prepared to compete or address the challenges of a changing world. America is unfit to lead when religion insists on followers. Can religion be as grounded in critical thinking as it is in feeling or faith? This is, to me, the more compelling question. nytimes/2014/06/09/opinion/blow-religious-constriction.html?ref=opinion
Posted on: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:59:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015