“You look like an ice cream cone!” comes the bemused commentary every time I wear one of my favorite dresses. It’s got delicious broad stripes of strawberry pink, vanilla cream, and chocolate brown, and the more I hear about my resemblance to the sweet treat when I wear it, the more I’ve been wanting to draw this picture. My style is not typically so saccharine; I tend to prefer being festooned in radioactively rainbow colored attire that probably makes me look like I’ve just stumbled out of the aftermath of some sort of gruesome unicorn accident, but I don’t mind an occasional day dressed as dessert.
This post is a continuation from Part One
Ryan’s story brings up some interesting questions for me: Is religion supposed to answer how gravity functions or how the earth rotates as it does or why what will happen tomorrow is consistent with what occurs today, in terms of natural events? Or is it more, as Amanda first brought up, to provide meaning to what happens? In other words, what is the role of religion and what is the role of science?
An acquaintance of mine wrote a fascinating piece for the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. His essay on “scientism” addresses some of these questions well. Why is it appropriate to elevate science and scientific methodology above every other type or pursuit of knowledge? Is it appropriate to use scientific methods to explain parts of life that are simply better addressed in other ways?