Sign in with Facebook
BlackOxford's Reviews > Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self
Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self (The Terry Lectures Series)
by
by
The Religion of Science
The psychological infirmity of projection is probably the cause of more strife in the world than any other. Those who oppose or impede us are not merely wrong; they are, we are sure, misinformed, incompetent or ill-willed. We impose these judgments based on their opposition not because we actually know anything about our opponents. We do this largely because we fear our own ignorance, lack of talent, and questionable motives. Our own defects are attributed to those over whom we want to exercise power.
Marilynne Robinson does a very good line in neurotic psychological projection. She does not like science; or at least she does not like her idea of what science is, which is a clear attribution of the defects of her own religious position to those with whom she disagrees. The remarkable thing is that in order to make her slurs about science, she must disavow her own principles of religion as well as a long history of Christian theology.
Robinson starts with a self-contradiction. She believes that most people (by which she means most intellectuals, particularly sociologists and analytic philosophers) think that they think differently than did their ancestors of several hundred years ago - mainly because they no longer speak and write in terms of religion. She disagrees: “...my argument [is] that the mind as felt experience had been excluded from important fields of modern thought. I meant to restrict myself, more or less, to looking at the characteristic morphology of the otherwise very diverse schools of modern thought for which the mind/ brain is a subject. But I find that these schools are themselves engrossed with religion.”
So quite apart from the extensive scientific and philosophical research into the “mind as felt experience” and the rejection in most of this research of religious terminology (has she heard of phenomenology and existentialism?), Robinson claims that not only has there been no epochal shift in thought since the Enlightenment, but also that science is a special kind of religion which is inferior to Christianity. And just to round out the contradiction, she would like us all to stop thinking the way we do about science and religion!
Oddly, however, Robinson is right. Science is a religion according to the way she would like religion to be. And it is a religion which is superior to Christianity precisely according to the criteria she uses. Her view of Christianity is that it has always been about continuous assimilation, interpretation and re-interpretations spiritual experience. I don’t think any post-modernist philosopher or the most hard-bitten physicist would disagree with the value of such a religion. One can only wish that her vision of religion were shared by her fellow-Christians!
Robinson, however, projects onto science the doctrinaire character of Christianity by presuming science is defined by fixed principles. This is a characterisation of the Christian religion not science, which changes its methods and principles of proof about as often as it does its theories. There is nothing in science considered immune from learning and modification, from theory, to method, to the people engaged in debate. Science, or more generally reason, has no fixed definition. The criteria for what constitutes both are constantly shifting.
Christianity on the other hand holds that there are fundamental principles - like the existence of God, and any number of abstruse doctrines - which are not matters of investigation nor are they subject to change. This is precisely how Christian sects define themselves - as adherents of some originary doctrine. The fact that there are many interpretations of this originary doctrine tends to make them more rigid rather than more curious. Therefore, while religion as ritualistic and ethical community may indeed be compatible with science, religious faith of the kind promoted by Christianity is not - because it claims there are things which cannot be learned about further, not because of what it claims to have learned.
There may indeed be things which cannot be learned about; but we cannot possibly know what these things are. This is what might be called the principle of scientific humility: we can only investigate what we have at hand. This principle has a religious origin. It is historically derived from what is called negative theology - the idea that whatever God is, he, she, or it cannot be captured in language; God is beyond our capacity to learn about. Negative theology has a long orthodox religious history; it is accepted without exception by all Christian theologians. It is also ignored by everyone of these theologians as soon as they start to write about the divine. Only science takes negative theology seriously. It simply refrains from idolatry by being circumspect and highly conditional in its claims.
So in that sense, but only in that sense, is science an alternative religion. And it is also in that sense that science is a superior religion. It recognises the impossibility of achieving knowledge of the divine. So it avoids the presumption and blasphemy of theological speculation. Science does not condemn theology as poetry only as pretending to knowledge that it cannot attain in light of its own principles. It is this which Robinson cannot admit - that the problem she has is not with science but with her religious colleagues, and is within her own mind.
The psychological infirmity of projection is probably the cause of more strife in the world than any other. Those who oppose or impede us are not merely wrong; they are, we are sure, misinformed, incompetent or ill-willed. We impose these judgments based on their opposition not because we actually know anything about our opponents. We do this largely because we fear our own ignorance, lack of talent, and questionable motives. Our own defects are attributed to those over whom we want to exercise power.
Marilynne Robinson does a very good line in neurotic psychological projection. She does not like science; or at least she does not like her idea of what science is, which is a clear attribution of the defects of her own religious position to those with whom she disagrees. The remarkable thing is that in order to make her slurs about science, she must disavow her own principles of religion as well as a long history of Christian theology.
Robinson starts with a self-contradiction. She believes that most people (by which she means most intellectuals, particularly sociologists and analytic philosophers) think that they think differently than did their ancestors of several hundred years ago - mainly because they no longer speak and write in terms of religion. She disagrees: “...my argument [is] that the mind as felt experience had been excluded from important fields of modern thought. I meant to restrict myself, more or less, to looking at the characteristic morphology of the otherwise very diverse schools of modern thought for which the mind/ brain is a subject. But I find that these schools are themselves engrossed with religion.”
So quite apart from the extensive scientific and philosophical research into the “mind as felt experience” and the rejection in most of this research of religious terminology (has she heard of phenomenology and existentialism?), Robinson claims that not only has there been no epochal shift in thought since the Enlightenment, but also that science is a special kind of religion which is inferior to Christianity. And just to round out the contradiction, she would like us all to stop thinking the way we do about science and religion!
Oddly, however, Robinson is right. Science is a religion according to the way she would like religion to be. And it is a religion which is superior to Christianity precisely according to the criteria she uses. Her view of Christianity is that it has always been about continuous assimilation, interpretation and re-interpretations spiritual experience. I don’t think any post-modernist philosopher or the most hard-bitten physicist would disagree with the value of such a religion. One can only wish that her vision of religion were shared by her fellow-Christians!
Robinson, however, projects onto science the doctrinaire character of Christianity by presuming science is defined by fixed principles. This is a characterisation of the Christian religion not science, which changes its methods and principles of proof about as often as it does its theories. There is nothing in science considered immune from learning and modification, from theory, to method, to the people engaged in debate. Science, or more generally reason, has no fixed definition. The criteria for what constitutes both are constantly shifting.
Christianity on the other hand holds that there are fundamental principles - like the existence of God, and any number of abstruse doctrines - which are not matters of investigation nor are they subject to change. This is precisely how Christian sects define themselves - as adherents of some originary doctrine. The fact that there are many interpretations of this originary doctrine tends to make them more rigid rather than more curious. Therefore, while religion as ritualistic and ethical community may indeed be compatible with science, religious faith of the kind promoted by Christianity is not - because it claims there are things which cannot be learned about further, not because of what it claims to have learned.
There may indeed be things which cannot be learned about; but we cannot possibly know what these things are. This is what might be called the principle of scientific humility: we can only investigate what we have at hand. This principle has a religious origin. It is historically derived from what is called negative theology - the idea that whatever God is, he, she, or it cannot be captured in language; God is beyond our capacity to learn about. Negative theology has a long orthodox religious history; it is accepted without exception by all Christian theologians. It is also ignored by everyone of these theologians as soon as they start to write about the divine. Only science takes negative theology seriously. It simply refrains from idolatry by being circumspect and highly conditional in its claims.
So in that sense, but only in that sense, is science an alternative religion. And it is also in that sense that science is a superior religion. It recognises the impossibility of achieving knowledge of the divine. So it avoids the presumption and blasphemy of theological speculation. Science does not condemn theology as poetry only as pretending to knowledge that it cannot attain in light of its own principles. It is this which Robinson cannot admit - that the problem she has is not with science but with her religious colleagues, and is within her own mind.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Absence of Mind.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 31, 2019
–
Started Reading
April 1, 2019
– Shelved as:
to-read
April 1, 2019
– Shelved
April 1, 2019
–
Finished Reading
April 2, 2019
– Shelved as:
american
April 2, 2019
– Shelved as:
criticism
April 2, 2019
– Shelved as:
philosophy-theology
Comments Showing 1-22 of 22 (22 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
withdrawn
(new)
Apr 02, 2019 08:53AM
It is curious that many Christians seem to put a great deal of effort into discrediting what they believe science to be while most scientists do not give Christianity more than a passing thought. It must be difficult to be a Christian in a secular age. Hence books such as this.
reply
|
flag
RK-ïsme wrote: "It is curious that many Christians seem to put a great deal of effort into discrediting what they believe science to be while most scientists do not give Christianity more than a passing thought. I..."I think you’re right. It’s the being ignored that grates. It’s exactly what my wife does when she really wants revenge.
Thanks for this very lucid and thoughtful commentary on a book that I wouldn't have been likely to ever read but am now better off for having read about!
Nate D wrote: "Thanks for this very lucid and thoughtful commentary on a book that I wouldn't have been likely to ever read but am now better off for having read about!"Thanks back Nate.
This review explains my unresolved anger while reading her fiction.
Lisa wrote: "This review explains my unresolved anger while reading her fiction."I know what you mean. I liked her fiction until I read this. Now I know what she meant. Fool me once... etc.
Diane wrote: "Fair review, BlackOxford"👍
I had issues with the book but found more to it. She learns a lot from Wiliam James more than from Christian apologists and tried to work to non-reductivism.
Robin wrote: "I had issues with the book but found more to it. She learns a lot from Wiliam James more than from Christian apologists and tried to work to non-reductivism."Perhaps I was too harsh. But she really irked me.
You wrote (numbers mine): 1) Christianity… holds that there are fundamental principles … which are not matters of investigation nor are they subject to change.
2)…the principle of scientific humility: we can only investigate what we have at hand.
3) Science does not condemn theology.
I liked her Gilead, and haven’t read this book yet, so my comment is only a reply to three of your own thoughts. I’ll start with No 3, because it’s the shortest: while ethically desirable, mutual respect or non-condemnation in any dialog is not a philosophical argument one can use to point out the fallacy of the interlocutor’s reasoning. Technically, being polite has nothing to do with being right.
Nos 1-2: I think that saying “Christianity holds that…”, without a clear definition of what is meant by Christianity, is just as an infirm psychological projection as (from what you’re saying) Robinson’s presumption of the fixed principles of science. While admitting there are limits to knowledge about God, Christianity at its Patristic foundations never claimed those limits were fixed (that doesn’t mean that science, this field of knowledge you say is not immune to learning or change, should set variable limits within which Christianity should define itself, or stick to). If there is any truth, it must come from revelation, Petre Tutea, a Romanian Socrates says, and adds that the intellect was not given for man to know truth, but to embrace truth. So in my opinion Christianity does investigate what it has at hand: an absolutely irresistible revelation. In plain terms, for Christianity the reality and nature of God are just as irresistible and evident as the beloved’s beauty for someone in love. It's the attraction itself that creates the knowledge, not the other way around.
I see no inconsistency between negative theology and attempts at writing about the divine: language is just a tool for communi(cati)on, or if you wish, another way of kenosis, or God’s humbling himself to a form that man can understand, even though it’s by necessity imperfect.
So in a dialog between science and theology, it's the common language that needs to be found first; apparently both are trying to impose their own.
Your thoughts did make me more interested in the book, so thanks!
2)…the principle of scientific humility: we can only investigate what we have at hand.
3) Science does not condemn theology.
I liked her Gilead, and haven’t read this book yet, so my comment is only a reply to three of your own thoughts. I’ll start with No 3, because it’s the shortest: while ethically desirable, mutual respect or non-condemnation in any dialog is not a philosophical argument one can use to point out the fallacy of the interlocutor’s reasoning. Technically, being polite has nothing to do with being right.
Nos 1-2: I think that saying “Christianity holds that…”, without a clear definition of what is meant by Christianity, is just as an infirm psychological projection as (from what you’re saying) Robinson’s presumption of the fixed principles of science. While admitting there are limits to knowledge about God, Christianity at its Patristic foundations never claimed those limits were fixed (that doesn’t mean that science, this field of knowledge you say is not immune to learning or change, should set variable limits within which Christianity should define itself, or stick to). If there is any truth, it must come from revelation, Petre Tutea, a Romanian Socrates says, and adds that the intellect was not given for man to know truth, but to embrace truth. So in my opinion Christianity does investigate what it has at hand: an absolutely irresistible revelation. In plain terms, for Christianity the reality and nature of God are just as irresistible and evident as the beloved’s beauty for someone in love. It's the attraction itself that creates the knowledge, not the other way around.
I see no inconsistency between negative theology and attempts at writing about the divine: language is just a tool for communi(cati)on, or if you wish, another way of kenosis, or God’s humbling himself to a form that man can understand, even though it’s by necessity imperfect.
So in a dialog between science and theology, it's the common language that needs to be found first; apparently both are trying to impose their own.
Your thoughts did make me more interested in the book, so thanks!
Anna wrote: "You wrote (numbers mine): 1) Christianity… holds that there are fundamental principles … which are not matters of investigation nor are they subject to change.2)…the principle of scientific humili..."
Thank you for your response Anna. They leave me perplexed in a way because you are clearly trying to think things through, yet you make unnecessary points.
First, Christianity no matter how you define it - Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant with its various sects - is a religion of doctrine, that is to say fixed principles. Each group may ‘hold’ to different variations of these; but there is no doubt that they profess to believe these as absolute truth. Most of these groups have ‘creeds’ which express just this belief. These contain propositions which are immune from contradiction and therefore serious investigation. To suggest otherwise is quibbling with intent I’m afraid.
I am unclear about what you mean by the patristic foundations of Christianity, or why you should pick a certain historical period as being definitive. It is clear that Christian doctrine has evolved, even though the official line is that it was all there in nuce from the beginning. That is to say, folk have thought about it and the language has been developed to discuss it. I have no quarrel at all with this. It’s what beings capable of language do.
What concerns me however is first that most of the Christian sects (the Mormons being an exception but many don’t consider them Christian) claim the contents of the New Testament as the ‘final revelation.’ Epistemologically speaking this is not just silly but is contradicted by all of biblical development. This doctrine of final revelation is in fact meant to fix the text which had hitherto evolved in an uncontrolled way. The effect is to divinize language and give power to the institution of the church.
Second, I think it is a healthy human impulse to interpret poetical texts such as scripture. However, when there is any claim that some such interpretation is definitive, and when such claim is enforced by coercion and violence, it becomes unhealthy. The history of lack of health in Christianity is rather clear. The authorities in every sect have an interest in maintaining power not the truthfulness of what is claimed.
As an aside, I am willing to accept the fact that some people feel, as Karl Barth said it, ‘compelled’ to believe by some personal insight. Good for them. I wish them good fortune. But, from my experience, I don’t think there are many of these in any congregation. Most are there because of cultural reasons, e.g. their parents were there; they find the art or ritual congenial; all the neighbours go, etc. My experience also suggests that even those who feel ‘grabbed’ by faith also feel compelled to tell the rest of us how good that feels. This makes it rather tedious to be around them and suggests an attempt to confirm their spiritual insight.
Regarding this matter of revelation: This is in fact an acceptable notion in scientific thought. It is called ‘abduction’ (a name coined by the American philosopher CS Peirce, but recognized long before). Abduction is an irrational insight. That is, it is an idea which is arrived at neither by deduction nor induction. Abductions tend to ‘re-frame’ the world, sometimes profoundly. Euler’s Identity in mathematics is one such abduction; as is the doctrine of the Assumption in Catholicism. Abductions seem to come from nowhere, so they have a sort of mystical quality. Yet they are not considered definitive, merely suggestive in science. Science knows that most abductions will turn out to be bunk even though some will be spectacular. The Christian religion wants to maintain a fixed quota of these; it doesn’t ‘experiment. It is intellectually dead even if discussions about accepted abductions continue.
Your Romanian prophet echoes many other philosophers (Leibniz and Nicolas of Cusa among many others). No individual can comprehend the totality of reality, nor even express what they do comprehend. Neither can any group, specifically any religious group, particularly any religious group that refuses to recognize the continuing experience of not only its members but the world. There are more people alive now than have ever previously existed. If I want to know about truth, I feel certain that consultation with them rather than a group of illiterate peasants of 2000 years ago is a better bet. Interestingly Christianity doesn’t want to consult them but convert them, that is subvert their truth to that of Christianity. Shameful really, even to old Petre Tutea.
Given what I have already said above, I hope it is clear that I do not perceive a contradiction between negative theology and positive theological interpretation. My issue is that when positive theological speculation becomes doctrine to be enforced, it has crossed a line from poetry to power. My contention is that this is a bad thing. Yet this is the foundation of Christianity, indeed all religions of ‘faith’ which include Islam and most Buddhism (but not Judaism) as well.
Finally, the issue is most certainly not one of a common language. You are no doubt familiar with that as the solution of the Arian crisis within Christianity, or rather non-solution since the nonsensical ambiguity of the common language has effects felt even today. The issue is in fact ethical, how people treat one another. Scientists may argue and verbally attack opponents but they very rarely coerce each other. They do not mount political campaigns to limit what others say and do. They do not adopt silly positions on things like cosmology, evolution, climate change, and sex, etc. and claim these positions as immune from factual falsification. Christians do all these things and more to make the lives of others more painful and difficult than they need to be.
Anna, I have taken a considerable amount of time to respond carefully, if succinctly, to the points you have raised. I hope, therefore, you take this as a gesture of respect. My request is that you take what I have to say with an equal degree of respect. Before responding to me I ask that you read some of the relevant pieces on my philosophy/theology shelf. This will save us both time and frustration if our conversation continues. If not, I wish you luck.
BlackOxford, thanks for your extensive reply, which I read carefully. No disrespect was intended, I assure you, and I will only add a few clarifications: I wrote Patristic, not patriotic, of course, to narrow down what I meant by Christianity in a discussion on doctrine, i.e. the first few centuries and the ecumenical councils (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and others). I respectfully assume you did not mean them when you said illiterate peasants.
I agree with everything you said about sects. Biblical canon was not even established in the first few centuries, so it’s pointless to adore the text itself. I didn’t even touch this subject, and it is beyond the subject of discussion here anyway.
My reason for pointing out the insufficiencies of language was to show that even if the two parties, in any dialog, manage to establish a common language, it will be still be inadequate (our previous discussion on Blanchot comes to my mind). And it is exactly these intrinsic deficiencies of language that need to be compensated by mutual respect. But abandoning one’s identity or allowing it to be dissolved for the sake of “dialog” is not a sign of respect, and firm belief is not a sign of disrespect, either – in scientific debates which were plenty in the history of science, or in religion. I don’t think disagreement is a waste of time, but its heated manifestation can be destructive.
Thank you again for your valuable time and thoughts.
I agree with everything you said about sects. Biblical canon was not even established in the first few centuries, so it’s pointless to adore the text itself. I didn’t even touch this subject, and it is beyond the subject of discussion here anyway.
My reason for pointing out the insufficiencies of language was to show that even if the two parties, in any dialog, manage to establish a common language, it will be still be inadequate (our previous discussion on Blanchot comes to my mind). And it is exactly these intrinsic deficiencies of language that need to be compensated by mutual respect. But abandoning one’s identity or allowing it to be dissolved for the sake of “dialog” is not a sign of respect, and firm belief is not a sign of disrespect, either – in scientific debates which were plenty in the history of science, or in religion. I don’t think disagreement is a waste of time, but its heated manifestation can be destructive.
Thank you again for your valuable time and thoughts.
Anna wrote: "BlackOxford, thanks for your extensive reply, which I read carefully. No disrespect was intended, I assure you, and I will only add a few clarifications: I wrote Patristic, not patriotic, of course..."‘Patriotic’ was my spell checker, which doesn’t recognize theological terms.
By illiterate peasants I refer to the original Christian followers. Your naming of several church fathers, and the first few councils as somehow definitive is entirely arbitrary. They, like Origen and Tertullian before them, are considered heretical by many subsequent theologians. This quite apart from the rabid anti-semitism of people like Chrysostom, Basil, and Nanziansus among others.
We agree that there is something beyond language. But whatever it is ain’t doctrinal Christianity. If you have profound personal spiritual insights, that’s your business not mine. Doctrine, that which defines Christianity in its own terms, is stated in language which is intended to be fixed in meaning. This makes language a central issue of the religion. To the extent that you or anyone else is fixated on such doctrinal claptrap as some sort of truth, we have nothing to discuss. I have a similar aversion to flat-earthers, con-trail nuts, and political enthusiasts.
You’re the one supplying Christian apologetics, not I. If you are not talking about doctrinal Christianity, then simply say so and we can drop any further mention of it.
You are also the one suggesting the centrality of a common language between religion and science, which you now renounce as really irrelevant.
You accused me of projecting. Are you aware that science, that is to say, reason, has no fixed methodological principles whatsoever? Instead it relies on an ethic of openness in which its accepted principles are continuously revised. This is historically verifiable. In comparison with religious thinking, with its doctrinal constraints, science is a superior intellectual endeavor in that ‘in principle’ it includes all thought including the religious. The inverse is obviously not the case.
This is not projection, therefore. It is a coherent argument. I made this clear in my review. Are you telling me that religious thought is also without fixed principles in this way? Please explain to me then the consistent historical Christian opposition to, for example, democracy, evolutionary theory, non-binary sexuality, female ecclesiastical and social equality, and contraception.
My consternation increases.
BlackOxford, the history of science witnessed its fair share of unethical feuds, so opposing its alleged “ethic of openness” to faith-religions’ narrow-minded authoritarianism is a bit flawed, in my opinion.
Surely I can’t be accused of renouncing the idea of a common language “as really irrelevant” simply because I pointed out its inadequacies?
Religion is not science (I think this is where we differ essentially), so maybe it shouldn’t be expected to continuously revise its fundamental principles just because science does. I can think of an explanation for why religions of ‘faith’ should not necessarily reconsider their basics, but I am reluctant to prolong this discussion.
Dialog between science and (any) religion is challenging, though not impossible, because the object of science is mostly measurable things that can be observed using certain methods, fixed or not. But religion is a way of life, and as such its scope is much broader and inevitably touches on many dimensions of this big thing called life, some of whose specifics are handled by science. These interfaces are the reason why the need for dialog arises in the first place.
Forcing religion to entirely remove its attention from all of these dimensions is tantamount to baring it down to an abstract core that is no longer relevant to anyone but obscure scholars. More bluntly, it’s like telling religion: mind your own business, but we’re telling you what your business is. Religion is expected not to talk, for example, ethics, because that’s within the competence of philosophy; don’t talk the origin of life, that’s for science to cover; don’t talk contraception, that’s for parenthood planning experts to advise on; don’t talk fasting, that’s for dieticians to offer guidelines on; don’t talk social affairs, that’s for politics to handle, don’t inculcate any principles in children, that’s for pedagogues to do, who are advised by all of the above. And so on. And this excessive specialization brings about the perfect disintegration of the self. Life is deprived of its overarching narrative.
Surely I can’t be accused of renouncing the idea of a common language “as really irrelevant” simply because I pointed out its inadequacies?
Religion is not science (I think this is where we differ essentially), so maybe it shouldn’t be expected to continuously revise its fundamental principles just because science does. I can think of an explanation for why religions of ‘faith’ should not necessarily reconsider their basics, but I am reluctant to prolong this discussion.
Dialog between science and (any) religion is challenging, though not impossible, because the object of science is mostly measurable things that can be observed using certain methods, fixed or not. But religion is a way of life, and as such its scope is much broader and inevitably touches on many dimensions of this big thing called life, some of whose specifics are handled by science. These interfaces are the reason why the need for dialog arises in the first place.
Forcing religion to entirely remove its attention from all of these dimensions is tantamount to baring it down to an abstract core that is no longer relevant to anyone but obscure scholars. More bluntly, it’s like telling religion: mind your own business, but we’re telling you what your business is. Religion is expected not to talk, for example, ethics, because that’s within the competence of philosophy; don’t talk the origin of life, that’s for science to cover; don’t talk contraception, that’s for parenthood planning experts to advise on; don’t talk fasting, that’s for dieticians to offer guidelines on; don’t talk social affairs, that’s for politics to handle, don’t inculcate any principles in children, that’s for pedagogues to do, who are advised by all of the above. And so on. And this excessive specialization brings about the perfect disintegration of the self. Life is deprived of its overarching narrative.
Anna wrote: "BlackOxford, the history of science witnessed its fair share of unethical feuds, so opposing its alleged “ethic of openness” to faith-religions’ narrow-minded authoritarianism is a bit flawed, in m..."Madame, this discussion has ended. Your refusal to address the points I make back to you in response specifically to yours is... well let’s say ‘obfuscating’, To continue this dialogue would force me to be unkind. And I would prefer not to be so. As I have already said: Good luck.
I, for many years (since reading Gilead in 2008), have listed Marilynne Robinson as one of my favourite writers, but, big but, having just read Lila (actually I skimmed from the middle), I can no longer say that.. Repetitive, not interesting, obvious, limited, not anything of particular - so I'll give this one a miss. thanks for your review.
Sara wrote: "I, for many years (since reading Gilead in 2008), have listed Marilynne Robinson as one of my favourite writers, but, big but, having just read Lila (actually I skimmed from the middle), I can no l..."I too liked her when I first read her. But, like you, I found her repetitive. And in this book, slightly mad.
I don’t understand your critique of this book. you put words in her mouth that she didn’t utter in the book. This book wasn’t a defense of Christianity - though she readily admits to being a Christian. It was instead a critique of social science and a reminder of the limitations of such social science to explain our humanity. It’s too bad many people read your review and concluded that her book wasn’t worth reading. Whether intentional or not, you didn’t accurately summarize her positions. I recommend people read it (it’s only 135 pages) and draw their own conclusions.
Ann wrote: "I don’t understand your critique of this book. you put words in her mouth that she didn’t utter in the book. This book wasn’t a defense of Christianity - though she readily admits to being a Christ..."I can’t agree with you more: people should read her book to form their own conclusions. But other than that you provide no evidence either that I have misunderstood her or that I have misquoted her. Her thesis that modern science is a kind of religion is indisputable. And that this religion is inferior to her own Christianity is the whole point of her book. My point is that she misconstrues science. Show me where I’ve gone wrong please. But before you do, please make yourself visible on GR. if you don’t, please don’t continue this correspondence. Clear?
You have an ability to provoke, I was glad to revisit your review and to read the responses of other readers. It gave me the chance to look at my review of this book again. It has been a while since I visited Robinson's book itself, but my feeling is still that you are too hard on it.
robin wrote: "You have an ability to provoke, I was glad to revisit your review and to read the responses of other readers. It gave me the chance to look at my review of this book again. It has been a while sinc..."You’re right Robin. Marilyn pushes many of my buttons. But I stand by my comments. Her view of science is a parody. As indeed is here view of Christianity. Far too sweet to be wholesome.
