Fascinating topic. Some might argue that science and art express the divine. Or that reality and spirituality are two sides of the same coin producing our much needed humility.
Science and art are marvelous temples. We do not need supernatural beings for any of that. Although I will have to admit that folks like Da vinci and Bach do appear to have some special gifts.
Great post, Megan. It's a nice pairing with your "Curiosity is Sacred" post. I once found myself making the case that humility and curiosity work best when working together. Humility without curiosity could easily lead to a kind of passivity to world. Curiosity without humility can easily lead to a quest for dogmatic certainties.
The Scopes trial is the most famous example that comes to mind. Here are two summaries of how traditional religion and Darwin have butted heads in the U.S.:
Goodall said that "chance mutations couldn’t possibly lead to the complexity of life on earth," whereas Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."
The true believer is undoubtedly dangerous. I'm working on another long winded piece right now about Eric Hoffer's characterization of "the true believer" and his totalitarian tendencies. Subscribe to stay tuned 🙃
Fascinating topic. Some might argue that science and art express the divine. Or that reality and spirituality are two sides of the same coin producing our much needed humility.
Agreed.
Science and art are marvelous temples. We do not need supernatural beings for any of that. Although I will have to admit that folks like Da vinci and Bach do appear to have some special gifts.
Science and art are the closest thing I have to a religion, but alas, they don't seem to do the trick for everyone. My take on the sacred:
https://fashionablylatetakes.com/p/curiosity-is-sacred?r=2vr1o
Great post, Megan. It's a nice pairing with your "Curiosity is Sacred" post. I once found myself making the case that humility and curiosity work best when working together. Humility without curiosity could easily lead to a kind of passivity to world. Curiosity without humility can easily lead to a quest for dogmatic certainties.
Maybe lessons about hubris are the hardest to learn...
"Darwin’s theories have long been at odds with religious belief."
I don't see how.
The Scopes trial is the most famous example that comes to mind. Here are two summaries of how traditional religion and Darwin have butted heads in the U.S.:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/02/04/overview-the-conflict-between-religion-and-evolution/#:~:text=The%20answer%20lies%2C%20in%20part,proven%20socially%20and%20politically%20dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_of_evolution_by_religious_groups
Mostly a Christian phenomenon as far as I know.
You seem to be missing a quote from Goodall where she disputes the point you quote from Darwin.
Overall this whole long winded piece seems to miss the obvious- cases of negative psychological outcomes for true believers.
It comes across as an odd cherry picking exercise that would only satisfy someone who isn’t thinking hard about the topic.
Goodall said that "chance mutations couldn’t possibly lead to the complexity of life on earth," whereas Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."
The true believer is undoubtedly dangerous. I'm working on another long winded piece right now about Eric Hoffer's characterization of "the true believer" and his totalitarian tendencies. Subscribe to stay tuned 🙃