John K.
As always, you are a masterly diplomat. You practically did the Tango
through that minefield and made it look easy (a neat trick, particularly
since the Tango is supposed to be a couples dance...) plus you're still in
one piece, coming out the other side. The Fred Astaire of opposing ideas.
Beautiful.
Judith
PS: You know that part about the "disagreeing aspects of one's own split
mind"? That's another Rosen genetic trait I inherited. Now, if you could
just give me some tips on how to get my various aspects to agree to disagree
instead of engaging in open warfare???
PPS: I don't suppose you have some aspect of yourself watching the rest of
yourself tango through the minefield, and yelling snotty abuse like "I
remember when you were a spaz, in fifth grade, ya twinkie!" or anything like
that?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] the Godly question
John M and Judith,
I know this is a touchy subject and the more we delve into each other's
opinion the more we will find to disagree with. I would suggest that
neither side, science nor religion, has an obligation to the other, and
certainly neither side is bound by the other's methods (proof vs faith).
However, each person is unavoidably affected by both, either as an
external force or an unavoidable part of one's own psyche that needs to
be sorted out. Like two family members who disagree, their positions
often represent to aspects of one's own split mind. The process of
finding truth is not a matter of deciding which fraction of the whole is
right, but to understand the whole of which these aspects are possible
fractions. This is the process of constructing larger system
perspectives, rather than fractioning further. I could cite Einstein in
the scientific tradition for clearly describing this process in his
explanation of how he shifted from selective thinking (which paradoxical
result of Newtonian mechanics is right?) to synthetic thinking (both are
right, thus implicating a larger system in which the dichotomy can
exist, i.e. leading to relativity and all the theoretical developments
he became famous for). On the religioius side I can cite Tiliard de
Chardin for equally clearly describing this process and formalizing it
in his "Omega" point where ideas converge (in fact most of the
contemplative faith traditions have metaphores for the larger system
where all things converge or harmonize). In a third dimension, the
humanist cultural-literary tradition, I can cite Herman Hesse and his
"Glass Bead Game" idea, where all knowledge comes together in a grand
synthesis which is so rich we can hardly imagine what it would be like.
I think these ideas are the constructive ones, as it will not be settled
by proof of differences. I thus agree one should "leave the inquisition
alone" as there does not need to be an inquisition, and the false
characterizations of each side by the other is the road to greater
confusion and inquisitions. This point may be particularly poignant in
today's embattled political realities where the forces of disintegration
("dis - integration") have taken hold for the time being, demonizing
enemies and attacking them, or perhaps worse yet because it sets up even
greater attrocities, condemning them and then retaining a tacit and
pregnant hate. My recommendation is two-fold. First, identify the
paradox clearly, without pretending there isn't one or that the answer
of which is right is a simple one; ie embrace the complexity. Second,
accept both (or multiple) sides as true and then proceed to the next
higher level of synthesis.
JK
John M wrote:
Judith,
A picture is worth more than 1000 words - especially if it is an Escher.
Thanks.
I think you missed my point; - there is no what?
it is not science's task to prove that "there is no God", it is the other
side's task (and obligation!) to prove that there is. Then we can ponder
THEIR evidences and REPLY positively even if it is a negative reply. This is
how the argument goes.
I leave the Inquisition alone: I live in the 3rd millennium.
However: you could have mentioned the killing of MDs and bombing of
abortion clinics. Not all fiundamentalists are meek.
All those biologists! they (I mean the fundamentalist Christians)
think and speak about 'human life' that, indeed, begins at conception,
but provide only much later a human person. Is the genom's/embryo's biology
(=life process) their fetish? I asked
(on another list) "who aurhorized the geneticist to order God to provide
a soul for the artificial or cloning fertilization mixture?"
Isn't it only authorized as the Church prescribed it (meaning the
'misiionary' way)?
Have a good one
John