Accepting evolution could help save Christianity from itself
"Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?
Darwin made it clear once again that-as Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Eckhart had already pointed out-we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the "God beyond God." The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words."
Ganked from risiko, a really interesting essay on how science informed the development of religion in the modern era. The second essay, by Dawkins... I agree with a lot of his points, but don't share the need to harp on the redundancy of deity once you accept the tenets of science. The first shot in the modern war between religion and science, in my mind, was fired by the Church, over an unnecessarily literal interpretation of scripture. If we want to move on from this, I think there's a degree to which we proponents of science need to acknowledge the ultimate compatibility of faith and reason, rather than exacerbate the situation. If you tell the enemy that you're taking no prisoners, don't be surprised at the bitter, bitter fight that follows.
Like it says in the article, logos, science, rationality, serves to model the world around us, attempts to understand how the universe functions. Mythos, religion, faith, serves to impart meaning to the same events, give us a sense of place and purpose. Short-form: Science models how, religion tries to explain why. The two have a tension between them, but they each serve a role in human life. The tension is one of the necessary tensions of living an examined, considered life.
There's a camp among atheists who ascribe inherent weakness to any religious believers, and Dawkins is something of a poster child for that crew. I give in to the pettiness sometimes, myself, with regard to inerrants and literalists - I have, after all, referred to the monotheistic images of God as "the magical sky-fairy" and "the imaginary absentee dad". But to say that any desire for mythos is a weakness, usually with the accompanying vindictive glee of superiority for supposedly not needing the structure... it's like saying that the need for therapy is a "weakness", that taking anti-depressants is a "weakness", that needing the support and comfort of friends is "weakness". Perhaps you don't need drugs, or therapy, or friends, or deities, but it's not the universal mark of superiority some make it out to be in any of those cases. It seems to me that the addiction to that false sense of superiority is a greater weakness than a desire to connect with something spiritual or divine.
Darwin made it clear once again that-as Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Eckhart had already pointed out-we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the "God beyond God." The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words."
Ganked from risiko, a really interesting essay on how science informed the development of religion in the modern era. The second essay, by Dawkins... I agree with a lot of his points, but don't share the need to harp on the redundancy of deity once you accept the tenets of science. The first shot in the modern war between religion and science, in my mind, was fired by the Church, over an unnecessarily literal interpretation of scripture. If we want to move on from this, I think there's a degree to which we proponents of science need to acknowledge the ultimate compatibility of faith and reason, rather than exacerbate the situation. If you tell the enemy that you're taking no prisoners, don't be surprised at the bitter, bitter fight that follows.
Like it says in the article, logos, science, rationality, serves to model the world around us, attempts to understand how the universe functions. Mythos, religion, faith, serves to impart meaning to the same events, give us a sense of place and purpose. Short-form: Science models how, religion tries to explain why. The two have a tension between them, but they each serve a role in human life. The tension is one of the necessary tensions of living an examined, considered life.
There's a camp among atheists who ascribe inherent weakness to any religious believers, and Dawkins is something of a poster child for that crew. I give in to the pettiness sometimes, myself, with regard to inerrants and literalists - I have, after all, referred to the monotheistic images of God as "the magical sky-fairy" and "the imaginary absentee dad". But to say that any desire for mythos is a weakness, usually with the accompanying vindictive glee of superiority for supposedly not needing the structure... it's like saying that the need for therapy is a "weakness", that taking anti-depressants is a "weakness", that needing the support and comfort of friends is "weakness". Perhaps you don't need drugs, or therapy, or friends, or deities, but it's not the universal mark of superiority some make it out to be in any of those cases. It seems to me that the addiction to that false sense of superiority is a greater weakness than a desire to connect with something spiritual or divine.