FWIW

[pastorlenny]

Someone recently asked me a number of questions in an LJ community, so I thought I would share my answers here -- since they capture my perspective on certain issues that commonly concern those who appropach matters of faith somewhat thoughtfully.

Would you say that biblical interpretation, using these means, is an inexact science?I would push

Comments

[topf]

To your first question: I deeply dislike this illusion of exactness and completeness that many people like to propagate about science. And then there's this sense of superiority people have when they make believe that science does everything perfectly and any other human action is sloppy, incomplete, heartless, dumb, etc. It makes me feel like we're getting poorer and poorer. Sure, that's something religious people do sometimes as well, when they do as if their knowledge of values and ethics were an exact science too. Both things bother me. But the science thing bothers me more because I really dont understand where the dogmatism in science comes from, since one of the principles there is to be critical.

[pastorlenny]

There is a certain sense in which reductivist scientism seems dismissive of other human activities, such as painting -- rendering the encounter of consciousness individually and collectively with the cosmos diminished, rather than more complete. I would find any speculations about the origin of this reductivism speculative, but I would also tend to think that bad religion has a lot to do with it.

[johnny9fingers]

I'd listen to, or read, your sermons any day of the week.

[pastorlenny]

See you Sunday, then!

[johnny9fingers]

Unlikely. :)

[yes_justice]

So, whence the radio show?