American Indian Culture and Research Journal

As I read through Eric M. Riggs' comments on my essay "American Indian Spirituality, Traditional Knowledge, and the 'Demon-Haunted' World of Western Science," I was more taken by the things we agreed on than the areas on which we disagree. Riggs acknowledges the "all too common transgressions made in the name of science or improved technology." He also admits that "science tends commonly to carry with it a sense of invulnerability, a sense of possible omniscience, and paradoxically a kind of narrow-mindedness. These shared observations pretty much form the foundation of my entire essay. We do, (however, disagree on the extent and depth of the conflict between science and spirituality, as well as the position that Carl Sa an assumed on such matters. It is to these disagreement that I will direct my response to Professor Riggs. Riggs states that "the only conflict between science and spirituality comes from those at the extremes of each." He may be right. I believe, however, that defining extremism is a rather nebulous proposition which depends largely on the person making that judgment. In other words, if someone disagrees with us on an issue we feel strongly about, we tend to view and label that person an extremist. Moreover, extremism in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I would argue that the forces which resulted in much, if not most, of mankind's progress were initiated by people others considered to be extremists. The key is to have someone else who ultimately finds the common ground.