My first experiment in chemistry was an acid-base indicator made from red cabbage. After a few weeks, the bottle exploded filling the basement with a smell not unlike dead crayfish, so I switched to physics.
During my electrical period, Poppy, who was a retired railway engineer, gave me his textbook. Unfortunately, the book was out of date. I mean, it was written before the electron made it into the railroad engineer curriculum. My inner scientist needed electrons because I already knew the current was going from negative to positive, so the book went to the dump following the crayfish and sauerkraut.
Dad knew I was messing with electricity and warned me to be careful. I had been asking him to fix the light socket above my workbench in the basement. It took him a few weeks to get to it, and when he did, he found the light socket was working. I had to explain that I had fixed it. "Did you remove the fuse before working on it?" "No, but I was careful."
It came Hallowe'en. The youth were putting on a chamber of horrors for gory fun and we needed a dead body. We got a sweatshirt and a pair of jeans, stuffed them to make a dummy, and left it on the basement floor near my work table. When Dad saw it there, he was sure that I had been electrocuted doing one of my experiments, and he nearly died of shock himself.
There are lots more stories, but that is enough to make a point. I am trying to show that a scientist without an inner poet is a bit of a jerk. His thoughtless actions distress his parents. He has no feeling for the creatures he has collected. He does not respect his ancestors because he knows more than they do. He is unaware that his children will know more than he does. He is a jerk..
Never fear. Life will show him things that are not in the latest textbook. He won't get far before his inner poet awakes. Then look out.
You thought he was a noxious jerk before.
He's now equipped with rhyme and metaphor.

I remember reading one of Richard Dawkins books wherein he tried to illustrate how obvious it was that no such thing as "God" could exist. It was all science!
ReplyDeleteAnd I thought, what a jerk. The very proofs he's offering show that such a thing as "God" must exist. It's all in how you see it. Poor guy had no "poet's lens."
P.S. glad to see you writing and posting regularly again :-)
Yes, poor guy. Me too. Proofs against God are like driving around in winter with summer tires. God thoughts are standard mental equipment that give you some traction in difficult times. And God is certainly more than that clumsy metaphor. God exists as a thought. If thoughts are not some sort of reality, then we can throw away things like the value of a dollar, the beauty of a resolving dissonant chord, human rights, and compassion. Thoughts are an emergent property of the brain, which is materially real, and their effects are certainly materially real. Prof. Dawkins can speak for himself. My experience of atheism is that it is an important God-thought clearing out some stuff I no longer use to make way for the next God-thought; it is a contemplative retreat between gods. Atheism puts a lot of trust in reason without acknowledging the boundaries of reason. The rational non-god is another sort of god-thought. But like any other god-thought it is inadequate on its own. A god-thought may point to God but as you approach, it gets in the way. There is always something more. I just Googled "spiritual atheist". Lots of hits. If I can imagine it, someone else has already done it.
ReplyDelete