[Mormons and Evolution] 1/26/2006 09:57:32 AM
I don't think one can say that is anti-science. There is a real philosophical debate about the nature of knowledge here. To make an analogy where the problem is more obvious, consider mathematics. When a new theorem is "discovered" is it discovered or merely created? That's a real debate and was the point of concern for philosophers focusing in on science like Husserl.
The further issue is how to take D&C 88 and the relationship between God and creation. That is, to what degree is God involved with the workings of all things. It seems to me that a very valid interpretation is that God is very involved. Whether that involvement is in a Deist fashion, a neoPlatonic fashion, a purely metaphoric fashion, or (as Blake Ostler takes it) a kind of loving relationship isn't at all clear.
I'd be cautious though of arguing that any of those interpretations entail being "anti-science."
Even if one takes a much more limited view of divine involvement, I don't see the problem with God being involved at least in the environment to allow the current explosion in knowledge that's been going on for about 200 years. Why now and not earlier? When a scientist has that "aha, flash of insight" do we really want to say that in all cases it is purely the effort of the scientist? I'm not prepared to say God doesn't inspire all minds from time to time. I think I can see it in my own life, often subtly.
With regard to the similarity of Nibley and Young, I wasn't thinking of the Watchers issue and technology but more of the neoPlatonic idea that innovation only occurs via an openness to the heavens. That is real thinking is an openness to Being whereas poor thinking is a kind of repetition. I discussed this a fair bit in my Nibley reading club . It's basically the distinction between the mantic and sophist that Nibley (and others use). I should add that I think it largely bunk. But I think one ought keep it in mind when reading these things.
The notion of the Masonic Great Architect is a good one. I suspect your right there. Young was very influenced by Masonry.
Posted by clark
--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/26/2006 09:57:32 AM
The further issue is how to take D&C 88 and the relationship between God and creation. That is, to what degree is God involved with the workings of all things. It seems to me that a very valid interpretation is that God is very involved. Whether that involvement is in a Deist fashion, a neoPlatonic fashion, a purely metaphoric fashion, or (as Blake Ostler takes it) a kind of loving relationship isn't at all clear.
I'd be cautious though of arguing that any of those interpretations entail being "anti-science."
Even if one takes a much more limited view of divine involvement, I don't see the problem with God being involved at least in the environment to allow the current explosion in knowledge that's been going on for about 200 years. Why now and not earlier? When a scientist has that "aha, flash of insight" do we really want to say that in all cases it is purely the effort of the scientist? I'm not prepared to say God doesn't inspire all minds from time to time. I think I can see it in my own life, often subtly.
With regard to the similarity of Nibley and Young, I wasn't thinking of the Watchers issue and technology but more of the neoPlatonic idea that innovation only occurs via an openness to the heavens. That is real thinking is an openness to Being whereas poor thinking is a kind of repetition. I discussed this a fair bit in my Nibley reading club . It's basically the distinction between the mantic and sophist that Nibley (and others use). I should add that I think it largely bunk. But I think one ought keep it in mind when reading these things.
The notion of the Masonic Great Architect is a good one. I suspect your right there. Young was very influenced by Masonry.
Posted by clark
--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/26/2006 09:57:32 AM
posted by Christian Y. Cardall at 10:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home