I have written about Scientists and Engineers for Change America because at first they looked like something that I could consider for support. I found this not to be so, and I have written herein and in comments to their website the reasons this is so. This morning, I spent sometime re-looking at their website and the internet overall concerning this group. My conclusion is that they are secular humanists, with a political agenda which support the Democratic party.
From a “friendly press”; Scientists and Engineers for Change formed to support the election of John Kerry in 2004. . .. reemerged . . . Scientists and Engineers for America. . political consultant . . . is the group’s new executive director. I see little prospect of Scientists and Engineers for America, will ever be being more than another moveon.org. This excerpt, which I have more fully quoted and below, and what I read on the site cases me to so conclude.
The philosophy of Scientists and Engineers for Change appears to be that of the secular humanist. Secular humanism is a naturalistic world view. Protagoras claim that “man is the measure of all things,” can be seen as the historic foundation of the philosophy. The secular humanist in general rejects God or that matter they reject all that is supernatural. Protagoras said “Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life”
Much of the stated goals of the group are something that could be of interest to Traditional Christian, albeit to a much lesser extent to biblical literalists. It is the tone that makes me think that this group is anti-Christian. It is not that they want to close churches, it is they do not want Christian morals or values to interfere with government funding of what they envision as science. It is a matter of you can have your religion, just do not let it be part of the political process.
What secular humanist and all who in effect worship at the altar of science miss is that there is more to knowledge than what we can observe. There is more to knowledge than human reason. I here will not get into philosophy concerning our knowledge of God. I will just say we have knowledge of God that we have obtained by means that are not testable by the scientific method.
There is a certain sorry vanity is the assumption that I can deduce all I will ever need to know from observations of the physical world. This let it be clear. This is not a position taken by all scientists. Many scientists including me fully acknowledge that God has revealed knowledge to us that we will never fully understand.
Here is a not so friendly press A new political action committee enters the fray.
The friendly press is: “Scientists and Engineers for Change formed to support the election of John Kerry in 2004. Today it has reemerged bearing a new strategy, a new name—Scientists and Engineers for America—and a new attitude, one reflecting the idea that, to flex their political muscles, scientists need to do a lot more than simply give talks. Mike Brown, a lawyer and political consultant who directed the successful 2004 congressional election campaign of Jim Moran (D-VA), is the group’s new executive director. (seed magazine October 2006)”
October 8, 2006 at 10:11 am
There were a couple of points of yours that I would like to address.
Secular Humanism doesn’t support one political group or another. It is a non-religious set of values. The reason it is often seen in politics is because America was designed to govern the people with no religious premise. This means no laws pushing people to do something they don’t believe, no faculty organized prayer in public schools. However, religious morals can still effect politics through the people elected, for example president Bush preventing funding for stem cell research. This was clearly done because of his religion, but that is completely within his rights. The issue and whole reasoning why the SEA was organized is that a lot of scientists (and people who wish to see science progress) don’t feel properly represented in our political system. It’s the same reasoning as having a Republican as president and a Democratic Congress, you have more checks and balances. The goal SEA is trying to make is to have more discussion in politics about what’s right what’s wrong with better information. So, the SEA doesn’t want to boot the morality of the general people out of the scientific community, but rather they would like to have better representation and communication with those making laws that effect the scientific community.
Addressing a paragraph in your article:
“What secular humanist and all who in effect worship at the altar of science miss is that there is more to knowledge than what we can observe. There is more to knowledge than human reason. I here will not get into philosophy concerning our knowledge of God. I will just say we have knowledge of God that we have obtained by means that are not testable by the scientific method.”
This may be true, or this may not be. Like you said, lets not get into philosophy concerning our knowledge of God. However, even with there being more to knowledge than what we can observe, we will always explore what we can observe to the fullest extent, and use what we find to make the world a better place.
October 8, 2006 at 11:27 am
I understand your points and comment only to your statement: However, even with there being more to knowledge than what we can observe, we will always explore what we can observe to the fullest extent, and use what we find to make the world a better place.
I disagree with the idea of fullest extent. If we must do something in order to make the observation, then what we should do is controlled by morals and ethics.
October 8, 2006 at 12:18 pm
That’s fair enough. There should be checks and balances regarding our moral and ethical discussions, but currently there does not seem to be enough arguments or discussions in politics to say we know where that line of morality is for us to explore up to and not pass.
It seems to be a one sided representation, which is why I am such a strong supporter of the SEA. Not so scientist can do whatever they want, but so they can do what they really should do with integrity and support.
October 12, 2006 at 9:15 am
Protagoras’s writing seems to imply that the real quote is “Man is the measurer of all things.” Because we only know what we directly experience, how we look at the world shapes what we see in it. I think this is also the case with your look into SEFORA. The key difference to me is how SEFORA will come up with its pronouncements. Will it reach out to the scientific community that has joined it, or will it misuse it?
To science religion is opaque. At best those using the tools of science will say, “we don’t know and we can’t know” about any supernatural matters. There are no tools that can scry them out, there are no repeatable miracles to test, there are no hypotheses that are falsifiable to build a test to prove them. Therefore if a pure science organization appears secular, it’s no accident. They explicitly have no opinion about religious matters! That they espouse science teaching to not be colored by ideology is actually a good thing. It encourages people to explore the difference between the two. Ideology and religion are intensely personal. Science seeks to explain and explore what is universal.
There have been many intensely religious scientists. Don’t paint SEFORA with a broad brush without knowing its membership.
October 12, 2006 at 9:16 am
I neglected to mention that my own look at SEFORA is documented here. I am also skeptical of its affected non-partisan appearance.
October 15, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Jon Heer Says: “Secular Humanism doesn’t support one political group or another. It is a non-religious set of values.
I would say Secular Humanism may be not be theistic but I would say it is religious. Religion being defined in as:”a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.“. The unprovable contention that there is no god, is no different that the claim there is a god.
Wanting a secular society devoid of theistic influences is not a presupposed good.
Jon Heer Says: “but currently there does not seem to be enough arguments or discussions in politics to say we know where that line of morality is for us to explore up to and not pass.”
I would disagree, the moral judgement made by the current administration which are cause of much concern by SEA, are the line established. I do not agree with where that line is in some cases, but I am glad there is a line. We could talk this to death and in the mean times immoral science goes on. Or we can make a decision and then talk some more. I agree with the later.
Scott+