Now the Dowd book is something to discuss. I know a lot about the book and about Dowd. I think the concept of a marriage of science and religion is flawed. He writes from the perspective of scientific materialism and his work is more along the lines of "the conflation of science and religion." In a recent trip to Chapel Hill, he said that we know longer need faith because we have scientific fact. See this blog post by Michael: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-michael-dowd/new-theists-knowers-not-belie... . Where he writes:*A new breed of theist is emerging around the globe. We are religious naturalists <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism>: Reality is our God, evidence is our Scripture, integrity is our religion, and contributing toward a healthy future is our mission.* Now this is an incomplete response and there is much more to be said, including some positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in some senses I am a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process theology. See Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of...<http://www.amazon.com/Reenchantment-without-Supernaturalism-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801486572/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1373406412&sr=8-10&keywords=David+Ray+Griffin> by David Ray Griffin<http://www.amazon.com/David-Ray-Griffin/e/B000APTCK4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_10?qid=1373406412&sr=8-10> (Nov 16, 2000). In the process approach there's plenty of transcendence as well as immanence, and religious knowledge is not only what can be known through the five senses and logic. There are other ways of knowing. I imagine Harvey Cox's book is quite good. I've always appreciated his work. Herman On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:36 PM, R Williams <rcwmbw@yahoo.com> wrote:
Herman,
I read Brooks' article this morning somewhat hastily. What I thought he missed was the subtle distinction between belief (intellectual assent) and faith ("you-bet-your-life" trust), which is a very healthy and informative conversation going on today in certain circles. Whether he (Brooks) does justice to Taylor's book, I do not know, but on what appears to be the same subject I would recommend *The Future of Faith* by Harvey Cox and *Thank God for Evolution* by Michael Dowd. Dowd's book, which I suspect you are familiar with, is about the marriage of science and religion, which he explains thoroughly and, for my money, quite convincingly.
Randy
*No change without action, no action without thought.* -Anonymous
*From:* Herman Greene <hfgreenenc@gmail.com> *To:* OE Listserv <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:22 PM *Subject:* [Oe List ...] A review of Charles Taylor's "The Secular Society"
It's no doubt hard to do a book review in the constraints of a NYC op-ed column.
David Brooks tries, but I'm not tuning in to the richness of his review. Still I thought this may be of interest to you who taught about an urban, scientific and secular world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/opinion/brooks-the-secular-society.html?hp
-- __________________________________________________ Herman F. Greene 2516 Winningham Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-942-4358 (ph & fax) hfgreenenc@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
-- __________________________________________________ Herman F. Greene 2516 Winningham Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-942-4358 (ph & fax) hfgreenenc@gmail.com