For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
(Responding to a blog post on Patheos called “Science on Religion – Believing Impossible Stuff Is Dangerous. Except When It’s Awesome.” It was written by Connor Wood with whom I felt a great sense of solidarity.)
connorwood – “This is why I’m going to be leaving this comment section mostly to its own devices for the foreseeable future.”
First time here and glad I found your blog before you disengage from the comments section. The extra input, has given me a great sense of the quality of your work.
It seems clear to me, that the role of science is to inform theological speculation. Shape it’s evolution. Certainly not to replace it. I have often used the term “lobotomy” to represent that phenomena.
Who else but scientists can provide the evidence and language needed to wrap our heads around “Singularity” and “Infinitude”?
Who but the philosophers, poets and saints will remind them that it is God?
And has been all along.
Sabio Lantz (responding critically to the same post) – “Telling the same damn story over and over and over is not entertaining the impossibility. It is just hearing rote stories. “
This statement indicates the need to recuse yourself from opinion on this. You aren’t addressing the spirit of his intended meaning. Or, the experience of those whose lives are grounded in mythic paradigms different than your own.
It reflects a very narrow egoic habit.
(And, acknowledging another kindred spirit found in fellow commenter, Evan Skytree Snyder.)
Thank you for giving voice to the reasonable view, that we often intuit first, and acquire facts second.
I would also suggest that the facts themselves are less important than understanding the gestalt of a system. The latter, being the province of imagination. Especially when approaching the ultimate aggregation of systems that is God.
We also, don’t need to apologize for, or scorn, the more short sighted and silly articulations that we inherit from our ancestors. They make sense within their context. And, as you’ve said some are spot on and often way ahead.
This is where a sane, and non-oppositional application of science should step in. Catalyzing rather than dismantling the holistic view, with new information about it’s parts.