Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts

Monday, 13 September 2021

I Have Never Seen a Peach Tree

A cluster of peaches, still on the tree, amongst leaves.

I have never seen a peach tree,
At least, not to know I did.
There are many things we don’t see,
Though in plain sight they are hid.

Some things to see are plain to all.
Others seem subtle, their import easy to forgo.
It’s not a case of big or small—
We know what we see when we see what we know.

Of course I know a peach by sight,
The distinctive touch of the furry skin,
Succulent flesh in the mouth a delight,
Sweet juice running down the chin.

Thursday, 21 February 2019

True Religion

Two people sat on the ground with guitars, silhouetted against a setting sun.
True religion raises up,
      It does not cast down.
True faith frees the mind,
      It does not constrain.
True divinity heals,
      It does not rend apart.
True friendship fosters growth,
      It does not hem you in.
True love enables life,
      It does not enjoin unlooked-for change.
True forgiveness looks forward,
      It does not look to settle scores.
True knowledge illuminates ignorance,
      It does not give certainty.
True insight shows your inner self,
      It is not limited to the outer world.
Hold fast to the true, and be wise to the false.
Love your friends, and uphold life.
Forgive as you can, but not falsely.
Be free in your mind, and rejoice in the freedom of others.
Illuminate as you would be illuminated,
And share all, giving and receiving.
Written February 2019

Sunday, 25 February 2018

The Death of Fox

Engraving of George Fox
From the title of this post, you might have supposed that it was going to be a sort of tailpiece biography, covering the time shortly before and after the actual death of George Fox. Another possible interpretation would be that I was, out of all character, joining in with the sporadic habit of some Quakers online, bemoaning how unlike Fox most Quakers are today.
In either case, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Rather, it is a reference to The Death of the Author, an essay by the French literary critic and author Roland Barthes (it's original French title itself being a play on the title of Le Mort d'Arthur, but that's too tangential a path for me to dive down here), and of the literary theory concepts that derive from it.
The essential principle of the essay, and the related (but separately posited) theory of the “intentional fallacy”, is that the author is not the authority when it comes to the meaning of a piece of work. Once an author has created a work, they might tell you what their intent was, you might infer it from other sources, but intent is not the determining factor of meaning. I don't say that this theory is universally accepted in the study of literature; I also probably don't understand it perfectly, not having studied literary theory or analysis, so please don't rely on my explanation (or lecture me too harshly if you know it better – I'm glad to learn more, but please keep it friendly).

Sunday, 10 December 2017

Science and Faith: A Quaker Perspective

Image is divided on the diagonal. In the upper left is a view of the interior of a heavily-ornamented cathedral, while in the lower right is an image of a microscope examining a slide with a piece of leaf.
A popular trope these days depicts faith and religion as opposed to science. The logic behind this is simple – science is based on testability, reproducibility, and acting based on evidence. Religion by it's nature is considered to require actions based on faith, rather than evidence, and many religious claims are inherently untestable, or at least such tests as may be argued to be possible have factors that make such testing not reproducible; in terms of philosophy or science, the claims are unfalsifiable.
Anti-religion advocates also often point to religious persecution of scientists, as in the case of Galileo Galilei, or of religious authorities resisting the adoption or teaching of science, as in the case of evolution (for some time) or the attempts to have schools teach intelligent design as science. However, it is also true that many great scientists have been religious, such as the (Quaker) astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington, and the polymath Blaise Pascal. There are also cases of cultures and times where religion, even relatively authoritarian religion, has been a dominant feature of life, yet sciences have flourished – most notably the Islamic Golden Age.
The debate about whether religion in general is compatible with science will carry on in many places, especially online forums and blogs, for a long time yet. In this post, I will be addressing specifically the underlying assertion that faith stands opposed to reason and evidence, and applying specifically my own non-theist Quaker approach to faith to look at the implications.
If you enjoy this blog, or otherwise find it worthwhile, please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information about this, and the chance to comment, can be found in the post announcing the launch of my Patreon.