« Kung-Fu Panda | Main | For Rob Kendt »

June 24, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

danielle wilson

"The rational sciences don’t pretend to have all the answers, but the rather hold out the promise that constant inquiry might yield results that get us closer and closer to something resembling the truth."

Actually this also applies to religion. If you ask any theologian (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. etc.) they will tell you God is unknowable except through deification--that point when humans become one with God. Deification is fairly similar to Nirvana in that very very few people reach that point in their earthly life. Rather we spend our lives searching and acting on those things that get us closer and closer to God/the Truth.
I think there are, as you say, "multiple truths occurring simultaneously at any given time." The true part of a fact is still true no matter how it is spun.
My view of art is that it is an emulation of the ultimate creative act. As such, it contains or can contain elements of the Truth, but it will never be perfect. It is our job as artists to spin and our responsibility to spin beautiful things, not tangled messes.

danielle wilson

Just came across this in my daily blog rounds...
Since you're interested the dialog between science and religion, this is from Dr. James Cutsinger's blog. He's a religious studies professor here at USC.

"This past April I was asked to give a short talk to a group of fellow faculty at my university who’re interested in “dialogue” between religion and science. I used the occasion to shine a bright light on the extent to which professors of religion have capitulated to modern notions of what constitutes knowledge, and to warn the members of this little forum that in the absence of a thoroughgoing reappraisal of what it means to know, any supposed dialogue will simply degenerate into parallel monologues.

In case you’re interested, I have just posted this talk on my website along with some of my other articles and papers. It’s called “Requiring Religion: Be What Knows”.



Isaac, I wasn't able to talk to you about "Honest" because of the time-constraints of baby-sitters, but I wanted to tell you that Jordana and I both really like the piece on many different levels.

My one discomfort with the piece is the unfortunate way it managed, through no fault of anyone involved, to not attach itself to my own experience of the debate. The Atheist is confronted with miracles that he is able to defy, for most of the play, which married perfectly to the way that the piece was directed and acted (I just loved the cast so much, Abe really blew me away), but...

The battle between faith and lack thereof is never answered with miracles. No proof of God has ever been given to anyone (yes, spoken like the atheist I am) and the claims of miracles are always dismissable. For me, in my arguments and battles with people of faith, it's always a fight between restlessness and miseducation, where one group is claiming to know peace and the other (me) is claiming that peace is only knowable through aggressively opting for ignorance.

So, my response to the play was extremely positive, but also completely cerebral, which I hope is a compliment. I wish I had the time to actually socialize, I would be thrilled to get a chance to talk about the show with you and the others. Full time Dad-ness has its benefits, but adult conversation isn't one them...

Jennifer Gordon Thomas

"At the same time, it’s troubling because what do we have to cling to, if we don’t have truth? How do we understand the world if not through facts? How do we achieve anything beyond the individual without a consensus as to what is and is not?"

isaac, you're opening the door wide for a discussion on buddhism and non-attachment, non-clinging. the way. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker