Aiwendil
In discussing the censorship of alternative scientific theories, with evolution as the example, you say -
Quote:
|
It is censorship in that it is the rational censure of inadequate theories. It is declining an argument on its own faults. It is not banning. It retains the freedom to discuss ideas such as creationism, but it does not restrict the arguments that may be used to prove that creationism is false. To make an analogy: there is no ban on discussion of the idea that 2+2=5; but logical arguments can be used to prove that idea false.
|
To me this implies that logic can be used definitively to prove that any theories are false, as if all knowledge could be reduced to mathematical abstraction. Elsewhere I mentioned Xeno's Arrow as a fairly ancient example of how logic can be the basis for absurdity, and again in other posts we have seen Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God, which in it's own terms is as irrefutable as 2+2=4.
I would consider a rounded approach to evolution one that cited Mendel, Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins etc., but also looked at Lamarcq, Eysenck etc., and the flaws in inductive arguments that are inevitable in such an incomplete theory, as well as carefully reviewing the traditional creationist myth and its various metaphorical interpretations, and in more general terms at the 'design' argument and the hard science behind teleological hypotheses, whether divinely-rooted or otherwise. The idea that there is one accepted certainty, and all others can be dismissed with a sweep of logic, is untenable in this example - and as a general principle I would suggest not ideal as a way of teaching children or adults to properly exercise reasoning, judgement and insight.
Bill
I have to say that whilst I am still loyal to your polemical indictment of modern society, genuine tolerance and willingness engage is RARELY evidenced in the history of the church. From the ghettoes of Prague to Torquemada, from the Crusades to the genocide and repression of indigenous populations around the world, the established Christian church has a deeply tarnished report. It is pretty hard to suggest the leaders of Catholicism (or Christianity in general) have exemplified tolerance, debate or an aversion to 'banning' of any kind.
This, however, does not have to reflect on the messages of the Scriptures, or the mission of the Church in principle. It is merely that men of the Church must take their place in history along with others, and (inevitably) be judged by today's standards. Like others, some men of the Church have indeed fought against oppression throughout history. But considering the Church as an institution, one cannot ignore the various and numerous acts of banning specifically legitimised by that institution.
Everyone [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Given the nature of today's global culture, in most cases censorship is at best an act of
deferment. Despite the best or worst efforts of educators and the media, it is quite feasible to find almost any view or theory discussed at length on a website somewhere, from things I might find deeply offensive, such as neo-Nazi propoganda, to perfectly run-of-the-mill current cultural phenomena, such as woolly new age mysticism. Once-banned books are now a genre in themselves ... and if Tolkien finds itself out in the cold at one school or another, well, there's a Hollywood film and a whole range of the printed books in circulation everywhere.
The issue is about the principles involved, and that was the basis of my original question. Censorship as deferment - waiting until a child is ready or able to discuss an idea (or its antithesis) or cope with powerful images or concepts - is something, I believe, that can be undertaken on a case by case basis with a modicum of good conscience. Censorship as
concealment on principle - whether it be censorship of pornography, racialism, religion or anti-religion, or revolutionary politics etc. - is I would say more problematic, for the individual and for the institution.
But hey, who said life was simple [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace.
Kalessin
[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]