|
|
Re: Science: Experiment, Revelation
Karla Poewe (kpoewe@ACS.UCALGARY.CA)
Sun, 9 Jan 1994 13:26:45 MST
Just a brief comment on Graber's point about revelation. What
references are you thinking of when you say "what is usually
called revelation"?
The question of origin of revelation is no more nor less
important than the question of the origin of ideas, insights and
so forth that have to do with everyday science. In fact, even if
you were to check - like Norton Frye - religious texts, you would
find that the origins of revelation come from insights about
everyday experiences [whatever these everyday experiences are for
people in different professions, including sciences]. We cannot
eliminate a concept simply because unexamined prejudices attach
to it. And surely it does not matter what cultural explanation
people give for the "flash" or "insight" part of revelation, in
other words, for the connections that are seen in everyday
activities. Whether people prefer to believe that its source is
sacred or secular makes no difference to the fact that it is a
revelation worth scrutiny.
I do not know where Graber gets the idea that content of
revelation is "exempted from scrutiny." This certainly does not
include Catholic philosophical and anthropological traditions as
history of thought teaches.
Karla Poewe
|