[MD] Case's Answer to Marsha

[David M]

>
> dmb says:
> Boy, I don't know about this either. At this point, even Fritjof Capra has
> denounced the Tao of Physics. Ken Wilber comes down pretty hard on this 
> sort
> of thing in explicit terms too. He calls it network materialism or some 
> such
> thing, pointing that these systems just put lipstick on the SOM pig, if 
> you
> will. I mean, I'm skeptical about the sort of project that marries physics
> to a grand philosophical scheme. I forget if it was Jung or Campbell, who 
> is
> a Jungian of sorts, but somebody pointed out that this was a huge disaster
> for the Church. The telescope would not have been so damaging if the
> theology hadn't been married to the cosmology in the first place. They
> created the situation in which astronomical observations could upset
> theological positions. Agreement with science is one of those essential
> ingredients, but we don't want to hitch our wagons to the latest theory 
> too
> tightly for one simple reason; science keeps painting a new picture. It
> keeps moving and we like it that way. Philosophy should move forward too,
> but in its own terms and at its own pace.


DM: Now call me uneducated, but was there not some guy called Galileo
who said we should base our religion on god's nature rather than any
book of revelation, so what's a good approach for Galileo should be
good enough for some guy who only has to fear being embarrassed about
where he hitches his wagon. I think I'll keeping hitching my theory to the
best knowledge available, what's the option? Be a dogmatist like DMB,
no thanks.