What allowance does supernaturalism have for new ideas? It seems irrational to never take into account new discoveries when one’s “revealed, intuited, empirically unresponsive worldview is necessarily true, [that] any contradictions of it must be discounted as illusory and wrong-headed” (5).
First off, I want to take into question the quote from page five. We must keep in mind that this quote comes from a naturalist describing supernaturalist ideas and not in the most charitable way. However, I am skeptical about new ideas and supernaturalism as well. I simply cannot accept the excuse that God acts in mysterious ways that we cannot understand for an event that contradicts common beliefs. Although we may not have the knowledge or technology to explain everything that occurs, I personally do not believe in inexplicable events. However, I do not believe that religions overly reject science these days, especially in comparison with the past. The church's role in the middle ages through the crusades and other acts was despicable. The whole institution was based on keeping people in ignorance and practically stealing their money away from them. Although this has significantly changed, I am still wary of the history behind certain religions that rejected science for so long.
No comments:
Post a Comment