"It seems to me your response takes nothing into consideration this man had or might have to say"
I appreciated the link and read a few articles by the man. I posted a short response as to the philosophical context in which I considered the two solitudes of science and religion to exist.
It was not dismissive in any way. You gave me a short excerpt of a book, and I responded with a personal comment. You had not challenged me to any particular argument, nor did I have any particular bone to pick with Polkinghorne. He is a Christian; and Christianity has been argued forever on this thread--for and against.
"then I would think you might engage Polkinghorne a bit"
Does he have something to say which you find arguable or exciting? I cannot argue his Christian faith.
Sometimes I just get a little tired. If I do not engage every single post it may be because I do not know I am being challenged to speculate on a specific point.
"Your post which I was responding to lauded the thinking of a person of much less scientific accomplishment, if I am not mistaken"
You had not referenced anything in my post; so I considered them entirely unrelated. I did not take you to task for not needing to discuss any particular things in my post. It was posted as a matter of interest. I considered your book excerpt to be in the same light, and as I said...It led me to some interesting articles which I appreciated.
"you quote sources sadly dated, 150 years old in the discussion. I am disappointed, I must say."
This is just silly. It may be true that certain inquiries (such as statistics) may benefit from immediacy. But to suggest that Protagoras, Aristotle, Kant, Hypatia, Avicenna, Ramanujan, Mozart, or Goethe are merely passe, is to condemn human thought to an island of mediocrity--lacking both context and depth.
ctinquiry.org |
