Big Bang?

[Rcfchess at aol.com]

At the risk of being accused of taking a  "wishy-washy" middle-of-the-road 
position, I don't think we have to be totally  polarized here...for one (for 
instance), I believe in both evolution (since,  scientifically, there's ample 
evidence) and spirituality (but not creationism).  I don't subscribe to any 
organized religion, however, and I suppose if pressed  I'd say that, yes, I think 
creationism per se is just plain stupid (as well as  downright hypocritical, 
which I posted earlier). However, that doesn't mean that  evolution is a proven 
fact or that science is godlike in its  "omniscience"/infallibility, just as 
it doesn't mean that religion itself is  necessarily stupid. Science, in fact, 
is supposed to be open to questioning at  all times; but not randomly or 
because one chooses to automatically accept a  supposed truth dictated from an 
arbitrary source (i.e., religion). The two are,  therefore, not necessarily 
mutually exclusive; it's just that, I think, we  need to define terms more clearly, 
to see where one stops and the other begins,  as well as where they can share 
common ground.
 
RF
 
In a message dated 10/05/2005 5:30:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jbor at bigpond.com writes:

On  04/10/2005 Otto wrote:

> Wasn't it you who had put up the binary  opposition of science and 
> belief in this discussion?

Not at  all. In fact, it's precisely that binary opposition which I've 
been  challenging: i.e. the "science is truth and light and all must 
kneel at  its altar" vs "belief in god/s is primitive and idiotic and 
believers are  intellectually inferior" argument. It's about as 
monstrous a sermon, and  as far removed from the schema of Pynchon's 
work, as could possibly be  imagined.

best





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20051005/a8140d63/attachment.html>