PolitiFact is right to award Pants on Fire to the claim by the firefighters union that Jorge Elorza wants to teach atheism in the public schools. This is a controversy that has been brewing for a couple of months, and Elorza has point-blank denied being an atheist when asked by political reporter Ted Nesi of WPRI. The source of the controversy is a law review article written by Elorza in 2010 in his capacity as a law professor at Roger Williams University, a remarkable piece of writing highly unusual for a law review that in more than 60 pages delves into theoretical questions about the philosophy of science. Several people have concluded from the article that Elorza is an atheist, among them noted spokesman for atheism Steve Ahlquist, but I dont agree. Clearly, Elorza rejects the idea of miracles, defined as occurrences where the laws of nature are violated. This is not, in my opinion, a radical view that necessarily places him outside of the religious mainstream, and it is unfair to conclude from the article, as Ahlquist does, that Elorza is really an atheist who is afraid to say so for fear of political consequences. Indeed, the main concern of the paper is whether it violates the constitutional rights of students in public schools to teach as scientific consensus that miracles do not occur. Part of the problem is that Elorzas article, while thoroughly researched and demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of technical philosophy that is surprising from a law professor, let alone from a politician, is not exactly well-written, often falling into jargon at the expense of clear and simple language. Ahlquist is correct, I think, in saying that Elorza is arguing a case for methodological naturalism, but he is wrong in saying that such a position is essentially atheist. Nor do I think that the average person who does not consider themselves atheist would necessarily believe in the existence of miracles that violate the laws of nature. Elorzas key point in his article is that science is predicated on an assumed consistency of the laws of nature, and therefore teaching science in public schools requires official disagreement with quirky or idiosyncratic religious views that assert that the laws of nature cannot be trusted because of miracles, and therefore teaching in this way is not prohibited by the First Amendment.
Posted on: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:31:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015