Quote:
|
Because. Specifically, a miracle is exactly what science not. Religion and science may overlap, but miracles and science do not. A miracle involves the abjuration of science.
|
I suppose this posits a single fixed definition of what a miracle actually is. I thought theologians had been duking it out over this one for centuries, not necessarily with respect to science’s relationship with miracles but the actual definition of miracles themselves. If they cannot agree on what a miracle
is, how can you say definitively that science and miracles are mutually exclusive? I understand that a miracle ceases to be understood as such once it is fully explained, but I don’t think there is any danger of science figuring it all out anytime soon!
The real beef I have with the application of any “syndrome” to a situation is the temptation to use the narrow syndromic definition to excuse weakness of character or lack of will. It becomes an excuse to lie back and give over your initiative and free will to the vagaries of this scientific ‘pillow.’ This, in my opinion, does not invalidate the scientific theory involved, but rather causes the understanding of its applicability and scope to be distorted with respect to the rest of “reality.” If one narrows one’s scope to the tunnel of a syndrome, then one runs the risk of being defined by it to the exclusion of all else. And this is the danger of applying such a label to any person, be he real or fictional. I simply see it as reductionist. Certainly one can try to draw parallels, but, just as those who hold that Tolkien’s works are an allegory of World War One or World War Two are limiting their understanding of the entire scope of the work, so those who label Bilbo and Frodo as “Asperger’s afflicted” limit their understanding of these characters' beauty and complexity.
By the way, I have been greatly enjoying this thread and have been following it since the beginning. For now, I take my leave.
Cheers!
Lyta