Read part 1: Stephen Law on the allegiance of philosophy in the battle between science and religion.
Read part 2: Anglican theologian John Milbank's forthright response to Stephen Law.
Read part 3: Law argues that Milbank's defence of religion is little more than pseudo-profundity.
Many thanks indeed to Stephen Law for his temperate and measured reply to my initial response. We can agree at least on the Confucian need to maintain our humanity – the quality of Ren!
However, I must reiterate my views that first God is not subject to evidence and second that it is not after all so easy to disentangle God and the Good.
First, Stephen claims that my desire to distinguish religion at least partially from magic (and the issues here are more complex than many think) applies only to the question of whether we can influence or manipulate God. However, occult influences cut both ways, as any decent magical practitioner will tell you! Magicians may be able to affect the weather, and even the stars if they are advanced in their art, but the influence of the weather and the stars on us also counts as magical. Indeed the former instance of natural magic remains both apparent and mysterious – just how does material weather affect our spiritual mood? Reverse magic whereby things move minds would seem to be all too real, while, inversely, the complex effect of our minds on our bodies (ranging from moving our limbs to moods affecting physical well-being) would seem possibly to fall within the instance of primary natural magic exercised by mental influence.
Join the conversation