” ... once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend…
So wrote Tolkien, in 1951 (Letters of J R R Tolkien, no. 131).
Well, I have to say that my crest has fallen, too. Having, it seems, hurt quite a lot of people with a series of blogs about religion which, on reflection, were worded rather less judiciously than they might have been, I have edited them and offered apologies to anyone who might have been offended by the originals. I had thought that they contained points worth making—but not, on reflection, at the risk of hurting people and losing friends.
There must be a way of discussing religion without getting heated up (I think the entire subject is utterly fascinating), but if there is, I have never found it. Ever since I read The God Delusion I’ve wanted to write the detached, dispassionate analysis of the relationship between religion and science that Dawkins’ book plainly wasn’t, at least in my view – but concluded that I would probably go insane in the attempt.
The reaction to my blogs (let alone a book) has been painful enough – I can’t imagine what Dawkins’ mailbag must be like, and if his skin is thicker than that of a Nature editor of long standing who is routinely used to discourse of occasionally eye-watering robustness, it must match that of an ironclad brontosaurus.
A rabbi (and former scientist) I know came up to me once and said, very quietly, after I had discussed these issues at a conference, “I think you’re very brave.” Brave or foolish? You decide. But from now on I shall follow the angels. Very carefully.
Henry,
That’s a very good thing you have just done. It takes a lot of balls to admit an error, and to attempt reconciliation is worthy of respect.
Saluté.
Seconded. Good for you. You made some very good points in those posts, but they did get lost among all the other stuff. I’m working on a response of sorts, which will appear on one of my blogs in the next week or so. I’ll let you know!
Thirded (sorry, I arrived late). I agree with Brian’s comment on Lee’s blog – these discussions over blogs generate more heat than light.
John Wilkins manages to say some interesting stuff about religion, and even has decent discussion over there. I think that might be because we’re all too scared of the gorilla to put a foot out of line.
But Tolkien, even if he considered himself crestfallen, did create a body of more or less connected legend. Selfishly, I hope you do write a book about the relationship between science and religion. I hope I write one, too, though I admit I’m not sure I want to borrow that kind of trouble, either. It is so hard to write about religion (and politics, I might add) because people’s thoughts about it, pro or con or somewhere in between, are so driven by their life experiences and values. So on some level I wonder how possible it is to be dispassionate and detached about it; maybe what we can strive for instead is to be honest to the best of our ability about where we stand, and let others go from there. That’s the approach my pastor takes: he says it’s not his job to convert people, but it is his job to tell his own story with truth and humility when it seems appropriate, and to trust in God for the rest.
I think it speaks well to your character as a scientist and as a writer, and dare I say, as a person who follows a religious tradition, that you are willing to re-examine your approach. Being a good practitioner of science, writing and religion, I would argue, calls us to reflect and question.
And in my own process of reflection, I’m thinking that if people who see the value in both science and religion don’t write about it, if we’re not being honest and not telling the truth of our own lived experiences, then we’re abandoning the debate to people who deny the truth of what we live out every day.
Ouch, Anna.
I am reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby’s discussion about “courageous decisions” in Yes Minister. You are of course courageous, Henry.
And I don’t hurt anyone, Bob. I just posture.
As promised