If Svensson and his fellow biblical literalists are as open-minded as he would have us believe, why are they so exercised over the possibility that their children might be exposed to a rational scientific treatment of natural phenomena? I believe that all supernatural belief systems, whether primitive shamanism or monotheistic religion, are imaginative constructs of the human mind with no basis in reality. Nevertheless, religion is a feature of our society, as it has been of most others, and has influenced many aspects of our culture. My children attended Sunday school, and I hope that experience helped them to develop a tolerant understanding of the motivations and beliefs of members of religious groups. I do not think that my beliefs should preclude their exposure to important aspects of our society.
Was That Really A Reasonable Proposal?
Craig Svensson's view (The Scientist, January 26, p. 12) that one particular version of the sacred writings of one of the world's many religions is the sole arbiter of truth, and thus that the truth of any observation, logical deduction, or integrating hypothesis can be assessed only by comparison with those particular writings, must seem to most of us to be intellectually parochial. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Svensson is sincere in believing himself to be reasonable and open-minded when
| 2 min read
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here
Meet the Author
Daniel Atkinson
This person does not yet have a bio.View full profile
Published In
Share
