Oooooooh yeah you maybe couldn’t have picked a more triggering (generative/positive) word than nihilism! I used to be such a binch about my friends who were nihilists.
No I totally agree - I almost didn’t post bc let’s be real I didn’t want to be like… feeding a weird “react to react to react” moment. But it’s bonkers to me (clearly).
Something that’s been interesting is to see how the conversation has unfolded around Nolan’s post - I don’t know that it’s getting more activity than his average post, it might not be, but it’s getting a certain kind of activity, a lot of people saying “I love your writing all the time, but this is missing the mark.”
I guess now that I’ve sat with it longer, I do appreciate that he’s writing from a pretty narrow argument: “religious belief means you’re looking for answers.” Lots of anti-religion writers won’t be so explicit.
What’s maybe more interesting to me now is the idea that science (or whatever you might call “opposite” of religion) is not looking for answers? The search for answers and the openness to expansion are so not oppositional. What science doesn’t change over time? What faith doesn’t change over time?
I’ll have so much more to say about this later (lol), but I appreciate your feelings on this too!!
Oooooooh yeah you maybe couldn’t have picked a more triggering (generative/positive) word than nihilism! I used to be such a binch about my friends who were nihilists.
If there’s no point then like… ok?
No I totally agree - I almost didn’t post bc let’s be real I didn’t want to be like… feeding a weird “react to react to react” moment. But it’s bonkers to me (clearly).
Something that’s been interesting is to see how the conversation has unfolded around Nolan’s post - I don’t know that it’s getting more activity than his average post, it might not be, but it’s getting a certain kind of activity, a lot of people saying “I love your writing all the time, but this is missing the mark.”
I guess now that I’ve sat with it longer, I do appreciate that he’s writing from a pretty narrow argument: “religious belief means you’re looking for answers.” Lots of anti-religion writers won’t be so explicit.
What’s maybe more interesting to me now is the idea that science (or whatever you might call “opposite” of religion) is not looking for answers? The search for answers and the openness to expansion are so not oppositional. What science doesn’t change over time? What faith doesn’t change over time?
I’ll have so much more to say about this later (lol), but I appreciate your feelings on this too!!