The language of contemporary philosophy is often ungainly. But sometimes such language is quite apt. For example, Paul Bloom, in a review of Edward O. Wilson's The Social Conquest of Earth, writes:
"Wilson’s careful and clear analysis reminds us that scientific accounts of our origins aren’t just more accurate than religious stories; they are also a lot more interesting."
But religious stories are "interesting" in their own way. (Some of us find questions about the meaning of life interesting.) And religious stories ordinarily aren't meant to be "scientific accounts." If religious accounts are interesting and accurate, they are that for reasons that are different from those that make scientific accounts "interesting and accurate" -- unless, of course, one grants Professor Bloom's presupposition that spiritual matters are uninteresting and unreal. (N.B. By saying this, I do not commit myself to a dualism of body and spirit.)
The dynamic evidence page
No comments:
Post a Comment