Why We Need Heretics
September 11th 2007 15:32
Do you know what the original meaning of the word heretic was? Able to choose. And if one is able to choose, one is also often able to think. This is the definition that I am choosing to go with at this point.
I read an article from Slashdot a few days ago. The link can be found here a
The crux of the article (if you are too lazy to read it) was that in order to advance, science needs heretics. People that are able to look at the choices and make their own choice. That they are aware, or at least have a certain amount of knowledge regarding the matter, and are not necessarily bound by the thinking that is all around them. Science needs this.
The scary thing, is that so does religion.
Winston, I can already hear you crowing.
Chesterton said that there is only one thought that should be stopped. The thought that stops thought. He also wrote several essays on the fact that sciences strength was in the fact that it could be disproven. Science has to move, grow, change and adapt. To a point, so does religion. A man named Rob Bell wrote a book called Velvet Elvis. He used the idea that if someone painted a picture and then declared that this picture was the definitive work of art we'd consider him crazy. I think that every serious scientist would agree with me if I said that we couldn't simply take someone's word on something. Newtown discovered how the world works. But Einstein told him how the universe works. Religion (and here I can only speak of my own) needs to change. It needs to move while keeping stable. It isn't about throwing away doctrine that is no longer fun or enjoyable, it's about finding how we can most effectively use the theology we know.
Chesterton was a heretic. I mean this in the context that I have already stated. He chose. He chose religion over suicide, the church over the pub and the catholics over the prodestants. Fair enough. He looked, he sought. He chose. Thomas Aquinas was another heretic. He looked, he read Aristotle, he made his choice and fought for it (do some research about what he did, he was pretty cool). He proved that spiritual truth and physical truth must be compatible, or they must be false.
I suppose, however, that I should say why we shouldn't have them. I'll leave that till next time. It's past my bed time.
JZ
I read an article from Slashdot a few days ago. The link can be found here a
The crux of the article (if you are too lazy to read it) was that in order to advance, science needs heretics. People that are able to look at the choices and make their own choice. That they are aware, or at least have a certain amount of knowledge regarding the matter, and are not necessarily bound by the thinking that is all around them. Science needs this.
The scary thing, is that so does religion.
Winston, I can already hear you crowing.
Chesterton said that there is only one thought that should be stopped. The thought that stops thought. He also wrote several essays on the fact that sciences strength was in the fact that it could be disproven. Science has to move, grow, change and adapt. To a point, so does religion. A man named Rob Bell wrote a book called Velvet Elvis. He used the idea that if someone painted a picture and then declared that this picture was the definitive work of art we'd consider him crazy. I think that every serious scientist would agree with me if I said that we couldn't simply take someone's word on something. Newtown discovered how the world works. But Einstein told him how the universe works. Religion (and here I can only speak of my own) needs to change. It needs to move while keeping stable. It isn't about throwing away doctrine that is no longer fun or enjoyable, it's about finding how we can most effectively use the theology we know.
Chesterton was a heretic. I mean this in the context that I have already stated. He chose. He chose religion over suicide, the church over the pub and the catholics over the prodestants. Fair enough. He looked, he sought. He chose. Thomas Aquinas was another heretic. He looked, he read Aristotle, he made his choice and fought for it (do some research about what he did, he was pretty cool). He proved that spiritual truth and physical truth must be compatible, or they must be false.
I suppose, however, that I should say why we shouldn't have them. I'll leave that till next time. It's past my bed time.
JZ
| 59 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by DuskDevi
Rucks and Rolls
Rugby World Cup 2007
Science and religion...it's all about Faith.
I will come back when I can JZ...it is late and I am tired but had to come here when I saw my notification.
I hope you are well. Nata is well too?
Dusk
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Good post, my friend.
Dusk, I have to say, for the record, that the one thing that science is NOT all about is Faith. If it were all about faith, there would be no reason for peer review, continued research, evolving outlooks, etc. and so forth. You can accuse science of lots of things but, please, never accuse it of that!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
My only nagging problem is how the word heretc gets tossed around so easily.
In one context it means something but in another means the opposite.
I am not sure that Thomas Aquinus would be comfortable with the word being used to describe him.
Revolutionary maybe but in the context of the meaning of the word at that time was he really a heretic.
just trying to split hairs
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
(you guys spoke about the same kind of stuff so I thought I would save some time and effort and reply to the both of you at once)
Winston, Dusk is to a great degree quite right. Science and religion DO have in common the common denominator, and denomination, that they require the person practising either to not trust their eyes alone. Science has many beliefs just as religion has many theories. What you have said about peer review is pretty well the same as christians getting together to talk about what was preached at the pulpit.
I'm glad though that you both liked it, came to visit and will hopefully enjoy the next post as to why we need orthodoxy.
JZ
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
I'm glad that you liked it.
At some time (tonight I hope) I will finish the next in the series. It's why we need orthodoxy.
The funny part is that I'll be using the same examples.
JZ
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
With that being said, hope all is going well with you
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
so, I shouldn't ask about String Theory, Dark Matter or the origins of life on this planet?
Heh heh,
Respect,
JZ