Life is a Miracle
I did not fully own the parochial and insular "faith" in Science that formed the central dogma of my grad school years, and so the smugness of reductionists like E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins always gnawed at me. I was not wise enough to explain fully to myself or colleagues why I could not just pledge allegiance to the creed that promised us some day that Science would explain All. I still wrestle with the seeming strife between my faith and the "knowns" of science but am not willing to capitulate, not ready, apparently for Wilson's "Consilience" any more than Wendell Berry:
"Science cannot replace art or religion," he writes, "for the same reason that you cannot loosen a nut with a saw or cut a board in two with a wrench." Against science's "false specification and pretentious exactitude," Berry notes quietly that the more he observes his own little corner of the planet, a small Kentucky farm, the less patient he is with reductionist, materialist explanations of the way things work--for here, and everywhere, "life ... is unique, given to the world minute by minute, only once, never to be repeated." (Amazon.com)
Mr. Berry expresses his concerns over the terms of this discussion in a long essay called "Life is a Miracle". A Counterpoint Press review has this to say:
In his best-seller Consilience, E.O. Wilson presented a blueprint for the reconciliation of science with religion and the arts. In a carefully measured response, Wendell Berry demonstrates that Wilson's reconciliation is nothing more than the subjugation of religion and art by science, which alone, according to Wilson, would set the boundaries of discourse among the three disciplines. Berry argues that religion and art are not subject to the reductionist and materialistic assumptions of modern science, and cannot be contained within its boundaries or explained by its explanations. He says the aims of science have become hard to distinguish from those of industry and commerce, and he advocates a new Emancipation Proclamation to free life itself from enslavement by the corporations and their scientific underlings. The aim, according to Berry, is not consilience among the disciplines, but rather conversation. He concludes his argument by suggesting a number of changes in thought which would enable such a conversation to take place.
I'll be ordering a used copy of "Miracle" today and very much look forward to the conversation started by Mr. Berry's carefully considered point of view.
Comments
Incidentally, Fred, I'm reading "Origin of Species" for the first time right now. What a slog. Darwin has a very obtuse, dense, Victorian style that is difficult to navigate.
I share your irritation with the reductionists. I take some comfort in knowing that most people simply cannot bring themselves to think like that, because the natural world around them is always shouting, "There's something more!" As much as I still battle with the truth claims of scientific naturalism, I find that the Heavens and the Earth are still persistently proclaiming the glory of God.
Posted by: Curt | October 21, 2003 9:43 AM
I've been interested in following the Brights as they tackle the intolerance of those with a faith in a God toward non-believers. I have struggled most of my life with questions of faith and concluded finally, I have none. Alas. A belief in God seems to be a good thing, most of the time, fo those who find comfort and solace in believing a God out there looks after them. I don't, even as I might wish to. Instead, I have come to believe in a power (higher or not I do not know) found in the natural world. Even if I am only a speck of water and chemical matter in a universe so grand as to be uncomprehensible, that is enough to keep me humble. Joining a convention whose definitions of this phenomena is God--in whatever form--is beyond me.
I have not read what Berry has to say> I shall.
Posted by: dan | October 21, 2003 10:03 AM
A friend included the following quote from a news story about Terri Schiavo in an e-mail this afternoon - then, oddly, I encounter a similar sentiment expressed here today in Fragments.
"The Schiavo case has changed everything. Our government leaders have been put on notice that tremendous numbers of people in this country are determined to halt the erosion of the sanctity/equality of life ethic in the practice of medicine. The routine practice of dehydrating the cognitively disabled who need a feeding tube - which occurs to the conscious and unconscious alike in all 50 states - is going to receive a badly needed review. The bioethics movement, which has been leading us down this treacherous slope, can no longer expect to pontificate from on high in medical matters of life and death and expect the people to just meekly go along."
Posted by: Lin B | October 21, 2003 7:11 PM