Sorry for taking so long to reply. I've been out of town for a while.
I have to admit though, this is more of a hobby of mine rather than anything I take too seriously. And I think your point and questions are over my head. I'll have a go at them anyway, though.
quote:
In itself, any scientific theory, no matter how subtle, has, I think, less value from the standpoint of psychological truth than the religious dogma, for the simple reason that a theory is necessarily highly abstract and exclusively rational, whereas the dogma expresses an irrational entity through the image.
The jargon is a bit confusing to me. But is the main point something about how science only approaches exact truth, while religion will flat out state a firm answer? If that's so, I agree with the statement.
Is the art of apologetics doomed to failure in that it is attempting to witness to the irrational by means of reason?
The way I see it? Yes, it most certainly is. Or as I'd put it, aplogetics are a waste of time.
Is it a rickety bridge disconnected from one side of the great divide it attempts to span?
Yes. I find this a valid description. However, my point includes that this great divide is nothing that should be attempted to be connected in the first place. Sure it's a rickety bridge. But who's idea was it to build any sort of bridge at all? Why is one needed? Where does this desire to merge Science and Religion come from? I think it comes from pride. The personal desire to be viewed positively in other people's eyes. To me, they are two different categories. Which is why we use two different words to describe each set. As long as you understand the limitations of both, you can reap all sorts of benefits from both of their
seperate excellent advantages.
™ Version 4.2