1. re: Where angels no longer fear to tread
    Mar 19th 2008, From The Economist print edition

    so they wish to develop a framework that explains the persistence of
    “religious attitudes and practices”,
    which we once believed would perish as obsolete,
    in human culture.

    but why stop at limiting the scope of this framework to religion?
    if we keep our concepts flexible and abstract enough,
    they will also yield insight into the emergence of
    “scientific attitudes and practices”
    in human culture.

    the economist writes,

    Science and religion have often been at loggerheads.
    Now the former has decided to resolve the problem
    by trying to explain the existence of the latter
    one wonders: what would it mean to allow the latter
    a chance to explain the existence of the former?

    or would the final responsibility for explanation
    fall upon a hidden ancestor of the two?

    4 years ago  /  Notes  /