{The Great Divide* [continued]}[11th June 1988]

[Redbook5:148A-D][19880611:0000b]{The Great Divide* [continued]}[11^th June 1988]

11/06/1988

[continued]

**But there is common ground. It arises out of the obvious fact that no one is either wholly rational, or wholly irrational (or anti-rational). In fact, most people appear to be unable to distinguish the two states within their own minds. Generally, people thought to be thinking irrationally think they are thinking rationally. This renders them susceptible to rational argument. And very few people actually reject the validity of Science as a process involving rational thought — the argument is agreed to be about the validity of irrational processes of the mind.

To look at the problem in another way, non-Scientists generally have a fair idea in outline of what Science is about, and accept its validity within what they perceive as Scientific fields (I suppose a Creationist might argue with some force that Darwinian evolutionary theory falls just outside his idea of the boundaries of Science, like History; but he would have a hard task justifying Genesis I.1-II.3 as a literal alternative). But most people perceive a vast area of experience which is not, or not yet, susceptible to the scientific approach. Much of this area of experience cannot be rationally proved: only experienced, personally or anecdotally. The Scientific approach is compelled to disregard these areas of personal experience. Clearly, some Scientists so completely identify themselves with Science that they also feel compelled to behave as if they disregarded these areas. This may theoretically be just possible within the academic laboratory: for the ordinary citizen, compelled to involve himself within the natural and human worlds, it is quite impossible.

Not all irrationality is necessarily religious, of course: intuition and innovation (or creativity) may operate wholly within the secular world. But it is characteristic of the irrational mind or mode that the boundaries between the secular and what is perceived as the religious are less clearly defined than by the rational approach, which seems adept at compartmentalisation. When Scientists and Science writers use terms like "mystical" they need to understand what they are talking about, or they will risk making fools of themselves and lessening the force of their arguments where these most need to be heard.

*[Short essay written speculatively for New Scientist; see [Redbook5:160-161][19880615:1642f]{Mysticism and Science}[15^th June 1988]]

**[See last previous entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26052018]