Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Something I wrote a while ago
2012
unknownj
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/26/evolution_claim/

Oh, this is all I need..

Bring back organised religion, because this whole 'personal spirituality' thing isn't working. The Pope and I are together on this one, we believe that people mixing and matching their beliefs leads away from the true path. He and I almost certainly disagree regarding what that true path actually is, but that's inconsequential.

Even the Catholics don't dare argue against evolution, because to do so reflects a lack of credibility. Rather, they hold that the creation story is a reasonable allegory for the origins of life, which is fair enough. Making man in his own image does not mean that God was bipedal, because in the beginning the earth was without form. Why would God need to walk around?

My view of Christianity was always that the mind of man was made in God's image. Consciousness, morality, the soul - the intangible things that science offers no explanation for (though that should not for a second mean that science stops looking). Again, this is not inconsistent with the theory of evolution, and the idea that God played no part in that process.

Organised Christianity falls into two categories - progressive and conservative. Progressive Christianity takes new information and assimilates it into existing beliefs, and is open to the idea of change. Conservative Christianity holds onto beliefs in preference over new facts, rationalising them away. I don't have a problem with either of these.

The problem is this new breed of DIY religion, in which new information isn't assimilated into the belief system, but instead religion is imposed on new information. Rather than taking the theory of evolution and considering that maybe that is God's tool for the creation of life, they try to prove with pseudoscience the necessity of God within that theory.

The thing is, religion has no place in science, and that's just all there is to say. The definition of science precludes it. Adding God does not increase the predictive power of a theory, ergo by Occam's Razor (which is fundemental to the scientific method), God is not involved.

  • 1
Is that the thing that Beckham advertises?

Q: Why would God need to walk around?

A: To move in mysterious ways?

Might I suggest a combination of all those different approaches: which is holding onto revealed truths in the Bible in preference over new 'man made' ideas, not assimilating new philosophies into the belief system but instead imposing a Bible-centred perspective on how to understand and interpret the new information that comes along.

Maybe that's not so different to any of the other ideas you just outlined, but I would squirm at the idea of calling myself "progressive" as well as rejecting the claim that I "rationalise away" new facts. I'm (mostly) happy to believe that evolution fits perfectly well with the truth that Genesis is trying to teach about God's design and complete power in creation, but it's always going to the Bible's perspective that determines where I end up.

Well of course you're not progressive, nor do you rationalise away new facts.. I forgot to mention Religious Fundamentalism in there ;o)

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account