RE: Science and Religion cannot overlap.
August 10, 2014 at 2:47 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2014 at 3:03 am by Michael.)
Jenny,
You mention Kierkergaard. I can very much relate to three key aspects of his view on faith: 1) all knowledge is ultimately subjective and nothing can ever be certain, 2) faith is born from an existential crisis often following on from (1)*, and 3) faith is a risk, and requires a 'leap to faith'. My own journey of faith reflects those aspects, though with much less drama and angst than experienced by Kierkergaard. That's not to say that all faith must follow that path, but it's a description of faith that really 'clicked' with my own experience.
It seems to me that Nietzsche and Kierkergaard followed the same path up to a certain point. Both looked into the abyss of uncertainty. But then each took a different direction.
*P.S. Just a note on my own 'existential crisis': for me that followed the development of a profound sense of the numinous that just wouldn't fit in with the atheistic world view I had at the time, but I also realised I could never (and still cannot) be certain that this subjective experience reflected reality. Faith, for me remains a commitment in the presence of uncertainty much more than a certainty in my life, but it is a commitment which has made more and more sense as I have journeyed onwards (and still journey). That sense of the numinous for me started after I started simply sitting in silence (in a church I used to walk past each day), so to this day I remain much fonder of silence as a path to God, rather than being an enthusiast for preaching, apologetics, or philosophical arguments for God. I since joined, as a lay member, a Benedictine monastic community, and it is that very quiet expression of Christianity that makes most sense to me (my life is framed by being a husband and Dad, a scientist, and an 'oblate', a lay monastic; all three gel very nicely together for me).
You mention Kierkergaard. I can very much relate to three key aspects of his view on faith: 1) all knowledge is ultimately subjective and nothing can ever be certain, 2) faith is born from an existential crisis often following on from (1)*, and 3) faith is a risk, and requires a 'leap to faith'. My own journey of faith reflects those aspects, though with much less drama and angst than experienced by Kierkergaard. That's not to say that all faith must follow that path, but it's a description of faith that really 'clicked' with my own experience.
It seems to me that Nietzsche and Kierkergaard followed the same path up to a certain point. Both looked into the abyss of uncertainty. But then each took a different direction.
*P.S. Just a note on my own 'existential crisis': for me that followed the development of a profound sense of the numinous that just wouldn't fit in with the atheistic world view I had at the time, but I also realised I could never (and still cannot) be certain that this subjective experience reflected reality. Faith, for me remains a commitment in the presence of uncertainty much more than a certainty in my life, but it is a commitment which has made more and more sense as I have journeyed onwards (and still journey). That sense of the numinous for me started after I started simply sitting in silence (in a church I used to walk past each day), so to this day I remain much fonder of silence as a path to God, rather than being an enthusiast for preaching, apologetics, or philosophical arguments for God. I since joined, as a lay member, a Benedictine monastic community, and it is that very quiet expression of Christianity that makes most sense to me (my life is framed by being a husband and Dad, a scientist, and an 'oblate', a lay monastic; all three gel very nicely together for me).
