"In 1927, Heisenerg's principle of uncertainty stated that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known. In scientific terms, this idea replaced the absolute and rationalist model of the universe. Einstein's theory of relativity revealed that time and space are intervals of duration and length that cannot be described as absolutes."
If science can balance the predictable and the unpredictable, theology can put it's big boy pants on too.
I like the Bible - especially it's apparent contradictions. It's much easier to be a reductionist, which is part of the reason why I can't take certain academics seriously. They drive home in the classroom what they don't teach to their children.
The Bible isn't about figuring out the HTML code of morality and inserting it into the universe. It balances tensions well, because it would rather us be wise than stupidly clinging to a narrow-minded set of principles.
2 comments:
So, can I take both yours and the reductionist' view on this?
Sort of. Except not reductionism, because that would be a contradiction. Reductionism implies the act of reductionism...which doesn't consider "non-reductionist" viewpoints. So technically you can't be "reductionist" and "non-reductionist" at the same time.
But you can live at peace in the tensions of knowing and not knowing, instead of being obsessed with pushing the extremes of dogmatism OR existentialism.
Reductionism parades as something that "doesn't know" but it actually becomes a form of "knowing what isn't known", which I think is the type of reductionism we should stay away from.
This stuff gets confusing. haha.
Post a Comment