By the end of our time together in Oxford, I hope to be able to assess where my strengths and weaknesses lie with respect to several science and religion topics. This will help me refine my long-range plans for Counterbalance Foundation and for my own personal development.
Over the last several years, I've been fortunate enough to attend presentations by many of the key scholars in the field, work with their papers, and read a good number of their books. There are now very few research areas for which I do not have rather detailed (or perhaps long-winded) opinions. What is not clear, however, is if these opinions are superficial in nature, or if they could actually enrich the discussion in some way. My background, after all, is the information technology industry rather than science or religion. While my personal reading continues to be broad in scope, my encounter with formal liberal arts education has been mercurial.
Over the five years that I've been regularly connected to the science and religion field, I appear to have passed through three developmental phases:
1. The Aspirin Phase. I found the Berkeley June '97 CTNS workshop quite overwhelming - I remember having headaches every day! It felt reminiscent of my introduction to Shakespeare as a child; it hurt, but I knew I'd experienced something very worthwhile.
2. The Bottomless Pit Phase. Once the headaches subsided I was able to sense of the enormous breadth of knowledge needed to even set the context for science and religion discussions.
3. The 'Wait a minute' Phase. Very recently, in a few focussed areas, I've heard positions presented that I felt I could contribute to.
As I consider the future of Counterbalance and my own development, three options come to mind. First, I could continue Counterbalance as is, utilising my technical and design skills to produce interactive educational materials adapted from content provided by scholars in the field. Second, I could attempt to contribute my own introductory 'front-end' materials for people new to the field. Something like this is desperately needed to open the subject up to a general audience. If I'm to develop this content, it is very important for me to first gain confidence in my own general competence in the field. Third, I could pursue the science and religion topics that I'm interested in, developing my ideas to a level that could be of benefit to the scholarly community as well as the general. This last option would probably entail interacting with certain scholars, and perhaps private tutors. Alternatively, I could pursue an education in science and religion at a formal level.
In order to wisely choose among these options, I need a somewhat reliable assessment of my abilities and ideas. Ideally, for each idea I would obtain one of the following responses:
1. This was settled two thousand years ago. It's known as "Fred's Fallacy". Or,
2. You need to read x to see where this conversation has reached a conclusion of sorts. Or,
3. Your idea is worth fleshing out. You might read a, b and c to get more background on the subject, but talk to Dr. d at e University, and see that they think.
There is no doubt that at this point my knowledge of many aspects of the science and religion discussion is merely anecdotal. I'm very keen to identify which aspects these are, and to set about rectifying this. I'm excited that the Oxford programme will provide an opportunity for me to start this process.