| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I recall moments of pleasure in reading a nun's thoughts here on physics,
and those of a teaching monk. They have faith, I am to suppose, like some
great physicists of the past. It is pleasing to see a philosopher seeking
to make a valuable contribution using the logic of pure reason.
The recent provocation which here assumed a religious voice, too easily
trolled for angry responses from us, and I am sad for our religious
scientist/teachers.
There is a civilized response to a gaffe: one can ignore it.
If not, an impulse can shock too many resonances, I think.
Here's a description of the basic trichotomy that you might consider
in case you have not already developed some grander structure: we
have needs that can be described as material, intellectual and spiritual.
To be lacking in any one is to be less than complete. And we show
ourselves as incomplete when we make classification errors by offering
scientific arguments in matters of faith as much as by holding onto
belief systems where scientific skepticism is in order.
I offer this thought: science does not need to be defended against
non-scientists, and faith does not need to be defended against scientists.
(This is the 'tergiversation' of the title.)
When it comes to creation, I am at liberty to believe an omnipotent God
created the whole fabric of creation yesterday, or an hour ago or a
second ago, and I cannot be overruled by scientific means - this is a
spiritual issue.
And if I am persuaded by the force of evidence and argument that species
slowly evolve (on average) over vast gulfs of time longer than I easily
comprehend, while granite mountains are ground down to sand and lush
valleys become rocky desert, no religious appeal is fit to turn aside my
conclusion.
It is, I tentatively suggest, a particularly American tradition to
suppose otherwise: the barren want of spiritual reference in school is
simply the obverse of the aggressive religious coinage - each feeds
the other.
When we accept that spiritual developments will survive to the last
breath of the last woman, just as it flourished in the earliest
gatherings of men we know about, we will come to feel (in my view) that
spiritual extension bearing fruit in social values, or in ethics or morals
as perceived sometimes as religion or a way of life is not just a comfort
blanket for us all too mortal humans (as some have here proposed) but an
appetite that persists like the need for food and drink.
Here endeth...