There are three points of view referenced here, but just one question. While consideration of dogma and built-in human desire for religious acceptance gave two sides to the coin, the missing element was the eternal discovery of truth through science. A critical review of a remark by Richard Dawkins defined one side of the triangle:
"...one cannot claim that science requires atheism because atheism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. She leverages the standard distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism: if you are a scientist you have to be a methodological naturalist (i.e., assume for operative purposes that nature and natural laws are all that there is); but this doesn’t commit you to the stronger position of philosophical naturalism (i.e., to the claim that there really isn’t anything outside of nature and its laws)."
While the discrepancies between dogma, faith, and belief in this cartoon caught my attention, a lecture series on the historical Jesus borrowed from the public library is providing insights into the tentacles formed in my own thinking from 12 years of parochial schooling. Trained in botany, physiology, and chemistry, a second side of the triangle, the base is familar territory to me. Perhaps you would substitute other labels for the third corner. Call it what you will.
The question is: If humans are hard-wired for faith, it is easy to see why finding something to believe in is a common quest. See an earlier post that defines the "conveyor belt" concept, a meaningful concept more pointed than simply stated "live and learn".
No comments:
Post a Comment