Leah Moler, lover of philosophy and writer at LifeAsLeahKnows, joins Pat to share her conversion story from agnosticism, through evangelicalism, to Catholicism, and why she believes reason and faith are not only not incompatible, but cannot ever ultimately be at odds, since all come from the same source: God.
Making Religion Intelligent Again
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
Mentioned Resources
You can learn more about Leah and keep up with her writing over at LifeAsLeahKnows.com
And follow Leah on Instagram @LifeAsLeahKnows: https://www.instagram.com/lifeasleahknows/
Related Episodes
EP 235: God and Science, Near Death Experiences, and How to Suffer Well
…
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!
Truth is consistent. That’s a principle that somehow has got lost over time. Why do people think that truth changes? Is it because they’re trying to advance an agenda? I liked hearing how Leah mentioned science coming after religion. One note, did science come strictly out of Catholicism? I think some educated and rational people would say it also came out of Islam. Any comments?
Oh, certainly. Islamic thought had a huge influence on the development of science, as well as Judaism. This makes sense, of course, since the general worldview of each of these religions believes the universe is 1) created and 2) intelligible. And that’s just the sort of philosophical framework that would seem most conducive for the flourishing of natural science. But same with philosophy in general. From Avicenna to Averroes, Islam has a rich intellectual history there, as well.
Thanks for answering my question and offering an explanation with it too. Fascinating how religions and science are not separate entities when you look at things up close. Sure, there have been zealots who persecuted scientists, but I think there’s a lot to be said for the true adherents of religion such as Newton.
Pat, as an English major, I’m so happy to hear you say no book is self-interpretive. As an author and an aspiring scholar, I think it’s insulting when so-called English critics advance literary theories like deconstructionism and poststructuralism (especially when they’ve never written fiction). An author writes this and Joe (or Joan) Critic determines what the author actually meant. Sadly, this ends up opening a can of worms where everyone interprets things the way they see things. Yes, there is a definite need for exegesis but the Bible (as well as other books) is not a “I’ll decide what it means.” It requires study, patience, and a logical approach. Good discussion and I’m going to have to check out Ms. Moler’s work.