Gentlemen and Ladies-
There is a big question in this endless and reiterative loop about
faith and science that no one mentions.
So I will. Seems to be one of my functions.
To wit:
Even our brains have two primary and differing sections, the
hemispheres: for best health and growth of the individual both must
be functioning and working together.
Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so
challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of
the game?
For an example of how unworkable the idea of a single approach sounds,
maybe I can ask you some questions:
Most of you are straight men, yes? Many of you have been married.
Would you agree that in your partnership only you have ever had valid
or useful information?
IE for any situation you've been in, to which your female partners
have contributed physical / mental / emotional / spiritual information,
yours was the only information needed or useful?
Do you think that your life, your pursuits, your existence only needs
you and other men?
IE If there were no women anywhere, things would universally work
better?
I could continue but you hopefully already can see my point. This
planet is dualistic. I will explain that later if that's not. But the
whole set-up is dualistic.
Our opportunity and challenge- particularly visible now- is to
understand and resolve dualities as necessary for the whole, to accept
each in turn, to mitigate harm as we do so.
Faith and religion are never going to yield to logic. They live in a
different part of your mind, that has other things to contribute, and
that doesn't have direct access to linear language. Art and music yes,
as languages; words and analyses no.
>>>> This is in no way an anti-science statement!
This is a plea for a world-view that realizes
Both are needed.
BOTH / AND
not
either /or.
Tory
http://www.nature.com has provoked its own discussion on faith. In
August:
Sometimes science must give way to religion http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244
arguing "why it will always be necessary to have ways of
understanding our world beyond the scientifically rational" and
setting off a long chain of online comments. The author, an
atheist, compared the Hindu cosmologies portrayed on friezes at
Angkor Wat and the explanation of the Higg's Boson given in the New
York Times.
This week: three short published responses:
Rationality: Evidence must prevail http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502d.html
"[...] the rational thought that underpins science provides us
with a system that works."
Rationality: Science is not bad faith http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502e.html
"Viewing temples and falling in love can be moving experiences, but
they don't reveal a hidden reality whose articulation eludes science."
Rationality: Religion defies understanding http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502f.html
"Our species has derived many things from its various religions —
some fair and noble, others foul and destructive — but understanding
is not one of them."
-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
