It was interesting to me to see how much traffic and anonymous comments the brief post on Ann Coulter’s new book, Godless, has prompted. Anonymous comments are not the norm for this blog, nor for the Homeschool Blogger community. Curious, I did some digging, and discovered that a link to this post was included in the internet infidels discussion board website … the discussion board of the “secular web” whose Google description states its purpose is to provide an “online community of nonbelievers dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, understanding and tolerance.”
However, the anonymous comments to the Godless post have not been knowledgeable, understanding, or tolerant of those who are not secular.
One commenter suggested my position is that we outlaw science since I stated that “origins is a unique, historic event that cannot be observed and repeated, so science has no business commenting on it.” It seems that non- secularists have more understanding of the basic definition of science than the knowledgeable secularists, even though on the main page of the secular web the definition of naturalism is correctly stated.
Science, in its most fundamental definition, makes statements and draws conclusions about that which can be observed and repeated by other scientists, in order to pass the test of peer review, in order for those statements and conclusions to be confirmed as “knowledge.” The importance of peer review, of observability and repeatability as a fundamental principle of all I would do as a research scientist, was drummed into my head at a secular, state- funded university as a science major.
Naturalism is not science (or operational science as it is historically understood). It is a philosophy devoted to the premise that nothing outside of nature or the physical world affects nature or the physical world, or has ever affected nature or the physical world. It must accept unprovable axioms
as foundational tenets, which define it as philosophy and not as science. Its axioms must be believed by faith, since they are not provable. Belief in something by faith is the definition of religion.
As to whether Coulter made a factual error in her book, if so, then she should issue a correction. But I wonder how many who are critical of her have actually read her book, or if they are reporting what others have said she said out of context. (I haven’t read her book yet myself, and just quoted her Human Events article.) We don’t know, but it would make an interesting survey, wouldn’t it?