However, under the influence of the last 6 years of consistently unsuccessful domestic and foreign policies, emanating from a regime that fancies itself as faithed-based, with a President who obviously has no concern for pending environmental turmoil, who, after all, claims that evolutionary theory has yet to acquire empirical substantiation, I am beginning to question my questioning of reality.
My response, which I posted in his comments section, is that we need to remember that Fundamentalism is religion’s panicked response to Postmodern skepticism and our ability to understand the Bible as one myth among many. Religion at its worst is monolithic and totalitarian. Science at its best is skeptical and open-minded. The important thing to keep in mind is that being tolerant of other views does not mean you have to remain passive when those views are harmful, antagonistic, or just plain wrong.
I look forward to the day when postmodernism and science realize that they share the same approach to understanding and investigating the world. They only became enemies when some post-modernists began to see monolithic and totalitarian tendencies in scientific discourse. That is to say, when a description of the way the world is, becomes a description of the way the world ought to be. When genuine science like evolutionary theory becomes a pseudo science like the "Social Darwinism". When the science that leads to our understanding of the earth's climate becomes the political football of the Global Warming debate.
I think the scientific community has actually been very responsive to the substance of the critique though they have rejected the gotcha tone. For instance Evolutionary Psychology, a science that is just begging to be mis-used, is very careful to distinguish between is and ought when it attempts to explain certain aspects of human behavior like violent behavior and gender roles. By and large scientists today resist the temptation to turn a set of scientific facts into a dogmatic set of truths.
The real problem is this word "truth". To most people it means the opposite of false, a fact that is not in error. For instance, you can say with great certainty that John is 6'2'' tall. That's true. Not even Baudrillard would dispute that statement. But if you say John's height is "manly", well now you've opened up a cultural can of worms. If you say John's height makes him inferior to others, the veracity of that statement will be based on the height-bias of your culture (one would hope that you're a scout for the NBA looking for the next great big man, and not some sort of crazy person).
Most of science deals with the former kind of truth, religion with the latter. Postmodernism, to me, is an attempt to describe the tension between these two views.
