Science, Religion

I enjoy reading philosophy in that it is an activity. The same cannot be said of science—reading on a scientific discovery. I do not know what I am supposed to do once I have read it. What does the author of the article suppose I do? “This observation has proven the theory true”—But what matters this true theory? I am not a practitioner within this field? What am I supposed to do with it? Gossip?

A similar problem arises when reading religious texts. However, here I have been shown a way to get involved—I could make a psychological exegesis. Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud, for example.

(Note: while I was entertained by thinking on Søren Kierkegaard’s Abraham, I didn’t find much arousal for activity in it—and to be honest I’m not sure why.)

In saying this, I do mean to say that while both of these activities are shrouded with disengagement, the scientific text could meet the religious text only with a similar type of discovery in interpretation.