Food for thought: the Reality-is-Complex edition
I find quite inadequate the approach to the study of religion according to which the researcher is divided into two separate entities, the scientist and the believer, the first bound to the rules of academia and the second obliged to ignore the absurdities that this duality introduces into his or her belief system. That so untenable an approach should have achieved widespread acceptance is due to the impositions of secularism acting as a kind of fundamentalist creed. As a result, much of the reality of science, religion and the forces that transform society has ended up hidden behind a veil created by false objectivity.
The alternative to the prevailing situation is not apologetics or sectarian controversy. What is called for is a new look at the interpenetration of reason and faith, as well as a systematic exploration of rational approaches that are not tied to materialism...
An immediate consequence of this realization, it could be argued, is to require the researcher in certain fields to make explicit relevant aspects of his or her own belief and experience. To do so in a meaningful way, one must be convinced that it is possible to be firm in one's convictions without being judgmental. Although the statement, "if I believe something to be right, then he whose opinions differ from mine must be wrong" passes the tests of formal logic, and although it is applicable in countless situations, its usefulness vanishes once the object of discussion becomes relatively complex. It is not that "A" and "not A" can both be true, but that the vastness of truth does not allow most matters of belief, if there is any depth to them at all, to be reduced to such comparisons. The only options this simplistic posture finally leaves open are either religious and ideological fanaticism or the brand of relativism that does away with faith, embraces skepticism, and idolizes doubt. It is instructive to note how the assaults of such relativism on belief, initially launched against religion, have been directed in the postmodern era to the very foundations of science.
The alternative to the prevailing situation is not apologetics or sectarian controversy. What is called for is a new look at the interpenetration of reason and faith, as well as a systematic exploration of rational approaches that are not tied to materialism...
An immediate consequence of this realization, it could be argued, is to require the researcher in certain fields to make explicit relevant aspects of his or her own belief and experience. To do so in a meaningful way, one must be convinced that it is possible to be firm in one's convictions without being judgmental. Although the statement, "if I believe something to be right, then he whose opinions differ from mine must be wrong" passes the tests of formal logic, and although it is applicable in countless situations, its usefulness vanishes once the object of discussion becomes relatively complex. It is not that "A" and "not A" can both be true, but that the vastness of truth does not allow most matters of belief, if there is any depth to them at all, to be reduced to such comparisons. The only options this simplistic posture finally leaves open are either religious and ideological fanaticism or the brand of relativism that does away with faith, embraces skepticism, and idolizes doubt. It is instructive to note how the assaults of such relativism on belief, initially launched against religion, have been directed in the postmodern era to the very foundations of science.
-Farzam Arbab (The Lab, the Temple and the Market)
Comments