Convergence is not my idea – not by any means. Its many advocates include the man I appropriated the word from – the Nobel winning physicist Charles H. Townes; however the concept also has its detractors.
Amongst them are those who belong to Stephen Jay Gould’s school of thought that science and religion are “non-overlapping magesteria”. Others are even more dismissive – they dispute the right of religion to any claim of authority at all. Convergence, they say, is impossible because there is nothing for science to converge with!
These scientists dismiss religion as an idea born out of superstition or some other fluke of consciousness, and attribute its durability to its success as a meme. While this explanation is an invention borne of intellectual application, it runs counter to the law of parsimony.
The law of parsimony holds that all other things being equal, when there are competing hypotheses we should choose the simpler. Obviously the simplest reason that religion is embraced is because its teachings are profound and its Truth eternal. Instead of accepting this, or even exploring it, brilliant minds appear set on conceiving convoluted alternatives.Continue Reading on communities.washingtontimes.com