I enjoyed the article, thanks op. > Although we correctly learn in schools that Newtonian physics is a model of pure rationality, we would dishonor Newton’s me

I enjoyed the article, thanks op. > Although we correctly learn in schools that Newtonian physics is a model of pure rationality, we would dishonor Newton’s memory if we overlooked the crucial role God plays in his Universe. This is also pretty huge in part because it still happens today. For decades and likely many centuries to come we will see good science coming out of even religious fundamentalist communities. Connecting science to spirituality--even if in order to genericize and capture spiritual elements for more tractable use to a broader group of humans--is a super important human effort right now. People like Lisa Miller are helping to stoke that fire. (They have also helped people like me move ourselves and our loved ones out of fundamentalist families and communities.) > Material or immaterial It's interesting and maybe unfortunate that this dichotomy became a question of import. Going back to his day it seems like we'd probably say something like "Material _but_," or "immaterial _but_". Always a good idea to reframe, reword, or replace those dichotomies during problem-solving...