Ed, Very good. Merton makes some points. You say: "He argues, further, that what lies beyond that boundary can be treated in two different ways, either by denial or by faith. Denial is the approach of the atheist - there is nothing out there that we can't ultimately explain in rational terms." Perhaps, the problem lies in the strength of the definition. "Denial is the approach of the atheist . . . " Why denial? Why not a reaction of mild -- or even strong -- interest in what may be - or perhaps it might be a fun interest, an entertainment interest, in endless (though not always too fruitful) discussion. Of course we want to believe there is something "immense, eternal and purposeful" out there. Perhaps a God, perhaps an extraordinarily advanced alien civilization. But is such thinking of primary importance? As I said to Keith, we know no more now than we did yesterday, or last week, or a century ago, about the speculative mysteries that certainly lie out there. So, why keep talking about them -- except for entertainment. Merton's statement is intended to separate two classes of people, which is all right, but perhaps simplistic. Why cannot one adopt the view that there is so little evidence one way or the other, that combined with a certain difficulty in finding more evidence, leads to the conclusion that discussion of this subject is not too profitable? You define the components of religion. Yet, can one not have a respect for mystery and compassion for all living things without being religious? Or, does such respect for mystery and compassion for all living things define you. Perhaps your quote indicates the difficulty of suggesting that God is no more than fantasy. God betrays no "trace of his presence". You note how convenient this is. God is proven to exist by virtue of his absence. I rarely indulge in this kind of discussion. I don't want to tread on tender sensitivities. But FW contributors are a stronger breed, which is why I entered the fray. Anyway, you're always interesting which is why I'm inclined to poke you a little. Harry From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 5:58 AM To: Harry Pollard; 'Keith Hudson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe OK, here's my take on it. It's something I posted
to a friend recently:
Ken, one of my reference points on this kind of thing
is Thomas Merton, the American Trappist monk, who argued that people have to
approach the mystery of their being by using both rationality and faith.
As ever so many great scientific minds have demonstrated, rational thought and
science can give us an enormous amount of information about the universe
and our place in it. However, there will always be a boundary between what
we can explain and understand and what we can't, and we really have no way of
knowing whether we have explained much about the state of our reality or just a
tiny bit of it. So, Merton argues, there is a boundary and, no matter how
far we push out into the unknown, there always will be. He argues,
further, that what lies beyond that boundary can be treated in two different
ways, either by denial or by faith. Denial is the approach of the atheist
- there is nothing out there that we can't ultimately explain in rational
terms. Faith is a little harder to explain. The fundamentalist
has faith, but his faith is very close to the approach of the atheist in that he
defines and delineates what lies beyond the boundary and therefore excludes
mystery. Even though I'm a deacon in a Baptist church, my own preference
and path is agnosticism. I want to believe that there is something
immense, eternal and purposeful beyond the boundary, but of course I cannot
know.
Personally, I think that the two most
important components of religion are respect for mystery and
compassion for all living beings that share the mystery with us. A book I
read while in the slums of Sao Paulo a few years ago puts it this
way:
Hope this helps.
Ed
P.S.: Merton met his end in a most ironic of
possible ways. He was electrocuted while plugging in an appliance in a
hotel room. A great and powerful mind overcome by a toaster. Try to
explain that!
|
- [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Keith Hudson
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Brian McAndrews
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
- Re: [Futurework] Our Mysterious Relationshi... Darryl and Natalia
- RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Harry Pollard
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Ray Evans Harrell
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Ed Weick
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious univers... Harry Pollard
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious uni... Ray Evans Harrell
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysteriou... Ed Weick
- RE: [Futurework] Our mysteriou... Harry Pollard
- But you are still a believer! (was RE: [Futurew... Keith Hudson
- RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Cordell . Arthur
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Ray Evans Harrell
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Christoph Reuss
- Re: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Ray Evans Harrell
- RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Cordell . Arthur
- RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious universe Cordell . Arthur