Eye light: Dave Dight’s Thought for the Week
‘We could move towards another Renaissance/ Reformation.’
I’ve always been interested in nature, vision and visual art, especially the depiction of light. I named the elder of my two sons ‘Jan’, after Vermeer, whose treatment of light is masterly. Later, after hearing Quakers talk about ‘the Inner Light’, which I take to refer to brain-states, I was struck by Neil Morgan’s article on Vermeer’s The Milkmaid (7 February 2020). Perhaps not coincidentally, both my now-adult sons are artistically gifted, and have been since they were young.
I’m a retired science teacher with a background in biochemistry and genetics. My current research project is a study of the complex processes by which light can control gene function. Its follow-up takes a broader view, focussing on (bear with me) transitions in evolution and the varying wavelength and flux of radiation, which delivers energy to matter in biological systems.
My wider interests include the evolution of vision and its relation to the physics of radiation. In this field one must consider how images are communicated through visual art, and particularly how they are processed internally by humans. This matters particularly when images are assigned supernatural or ‘transcendent’ status in religious narratives, as in Orthodox icons.
Integration of one’s inner and outer experiences may need careful consideration. Arguably, there’s a historically-recent disconnect between religion and science, possibly due to how historic events – such as the Enlightenment, technological advances, two world wars and the Holocaust – have challenged religious narratives. Hopefully a more embracing, coherent pattern of communal meaning and behaviour can emerge, facilitated by the rigorous and disciplined processes of scientific investigation.
From an evolutionary perspective, biological structures and belief-based behaviour must adapt to changing circumstances in order to remain relevant and effective. Right now there are some rather intolerant and shrill exchanges between the proponents of science and religion. But I’d argue that their differences are illusory. With a more integrated and constructive dialogue we could move towards another Renaissance/Reformation – one adapted to our current survival needs.
This may be too much to expect in the face of entrenched and personal vested interests, even when confronted with the political and existential crises we now face. But if it could be done, perhaps it would be natural selection in action?
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.