culturekitchen | fresh dissent served daily

Well well

Submitted by mole333 on 11 February 2007 - 1:23pm.

I don't intend to defend faith here. But I have known many scientists of considerable reason who combine faith and science in a manner that is harmonious and, yes, reasonable. Why reasonable? Because it is thought out and contradictions considered and resolved. I don't agree with their conclusions but I don't see their process as inherantly unreasonable. Attacking all faith as if it is equivalent to fundamentalism is just as unreasonable and suicidal as accepting all faith including fundamentalism as sacrosanct.

Reply

Visit our sponsors

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers
Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Words to live by

Two prominent Democrats lament the degradation of civil
discourse in graduation addresses:

Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles,
told University of Southern California graduates it was "poisoning our
politics."

Mark Warner, former Virginia governor speaking at Wake
Forest University, criticized the "personal and partisan attacks" and
"complex issues reduced to easy-to-digest sound bites."

"No one â€” no one â€” in politics has a monopoly on virtue,
on patriotism,
or most importantly, on the truth," Mr. Warner said.
"And that goes for
everyone, from conservative to liberal."

— NYT column by David Brooks June 11, 2006 - see Slate's attack on Brooks himself here.