[LMB] OT: Proselytization was Re: OT: Chick-fil-A

beatrice_otter at haugensgalleri.com beatrice_otter at haugensgalleri.com
Fri Aug 3 03:27:38 BST 2012

> On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:26 AM, beatrice_otter at haugensgalleri.com wrote:
>> <snip>   Most non-fundamentalists deal with science and
>> faith by completely separating the world into two categories and using
>> their science brain at work and their faith brain at church.  It's very
>> unhealthy.
>> ... It wasn't until the 19th century that there was a real problem.
>> Which one
>> faction responded to by trying to get rid of science or twist it to fit
>> their interpretation of the Bible, and the other faction responded to by
>> shoving its fingers in its ears and trying not to think about it much.
> But ... as the daughter, sister (if you count social scientists), wife,
> and mother (if you count computer scientists) of Episcopalian scientists,
> I've never seen any conflict between science and religion at all.  Science
> is about what and how, religion is about why, on a whole different level.
> _Darwin_ didn't see any conflict between science and religion, nor did
> lots of other scientists.
> I've been enjoying your thoughtful, knowledgeable posts on the theology of
> recent topics.
> Katherine

Thank you!

I see no conflict between science and faith, either, for the same reason.

If you're interested in why and how the anti-science thing came about, you
really should read Fundamentalism and American Culture, by George Marsden.
 Short version: 19th Century American philosophy was all about Common
Sense Rationalism.  They thought that of course anybody with a brain
should be able to read the Bible and understand it the same way they did
(because, after all, it was common sense!  obvious!).  They thought that
nature should be the same, that you would find something out about nature
and it would prove to anyone with a brain that *of course* their
interpretation of the Bible was right.

And then ... there kept being all these things--archaeology in the Holy
Land, evolution, geology, etc.--that *didn't fit* their interpretations. 
There were three choices: disillusionment with Christianity, twisting
science to fit their interpretation of the Bible, or finding other ways to
interpret the Bible.  There were lots of folks in all three categories.

Beatrice Otter

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list