Accepting evolution could help save Christianity from itself

[smarriveurr]

"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

Comments

[ragnvaeig]

Why not post this to NFP?

[smarriveurr]

Honestly? Primarily the inevitable chorus of "But this is about Ebil Christians, it's got nothing to do with us!" Also, it's just kind of a personal examination...

Gods know, I have a significant portion of the modstaff on my flist, if they think it'd be an interesting topic for discussion, they can tell me.

*crickets chirp*

[paperkingdoms]

That superiority thing is something I occasionally try to explain to people, usually when Friday-style conversations veer more towards religion than zombies. Because, well, been on both sides, and not an idiot. And there are people who manage to sustain both "real" non-fluffy science careers and faith, and it's not because those people are some sort of internally fragmented freaks.

And, well, Dawkins is about preaching to the choir, so to speak, not about getting anyone to reconsider their beliefs.

[smarriveurr]

*nod* It's weird, because normally I'm in favor of standing hard when you know you're right... but the greater question of faith is one where you, by definition, can never know you're right. If you think the fact that X volume of ice is lighter than the same volume of water at the freezing point is an affirmation of the guiding hand behind the universe, the watchmaker, that sort of thing... well no one can say it's not not so. There's no inherent conflict between believing in things beyond the ken of current science and practicing science, as long as you do it consciously and approach it with open mind.

And I know Dawkins is all about the entrenched support, but it seems like an article like this would have been a good opportunity to grab an atheist who was more openminded for more of a dialogue.

[paperkingdoms]

::nods::

It would've been. I s'pose it's a shame that there aren't more big names who are more able to engage people who don't agree with him.

[smarriveurr]

Well, in general, yes. In this case, I'm not sure how big a name you need. I hadn't ever actually heard of Armstrong. I'm assuming the only names known across the battle lines are the names you want to avoid.