[...]
>
>Thanks for the disclosure of something so personal. I can identify with the
>"faith adventure" since I experienced much of the same. I've had two such
>"turning points" in my own life -- one was as a junior in high school. I
>had an interest in astronomy as a hobby and always accepted the old age of
>the universe and earth -- since the astronomical evidence is so
>overwhelming. I started struggling with the Genesis account and eventually
>rejected evolution (while still embracing the old earth) on the basis of a
>honeybee argument. The argument goes -- if evolution is true, then what
>kind of bee was the first honeybee? A worker, a drone, or a queen? All
>three must exist for the hive to function. At the time, I felt such simple
>logic was the answer to my questions.
>
>Several years later with my discovery of the Internet, I wondered into
>talk.origins out of curiosity. What a mistake. :-) I found myself embroiled
>in arguments with actual scientists who weren't quite as stupid as I had
>imagined them. I was pointed to the bookstore where I first read "The Blind
>Watchmaker." That was the beginning of the second "faith adventure." After
>reading, arguing, and reading other materials, I came to the conclusion
>that the evidence for evolution is as overwhelming as the astronomical
>evidence for the old age of the universe.
>
>So why the struggle? Because the story of Eden is so central to the
>Christian theology of redemption. I always had recognized that, and had
>also recognized the threat evolution poses to that theology. If there was
>no literal Eden, and no choice by Adam and Eve to disobey, then why is the
>redemptive power of Christ's blood even necessary?
>
I'm not much of a theologian and I really have no answer to this
question. Some have thought deeply about it and can perhaps
suggest a reference. What I generally do with this question
is direct attention towards myself. I know that I have disobeyed
and I know that there is absolutely no hope for me outside
the blood of Christ.
>If a less literal Genesis interpretation is embraced, and man evolved --
>then at some point a transition occurred from animal to a soul-endowed,
>God-aware human. This transition is problematic for me to understand
>theologically, since it begs the question of why God would choose to
>"create" man through use of a method that seems predicated on selfishness
>and violence.
This issue came up not long ago. I had intended to write something
at the time but was too busy. This is one area where the "new
biology" has helped me. Goodwin argues that the reductionistic view
yields certain metaphors which can severely distort our view of
evolution. From the reductionists we have:
"One of the messages of The Selfish Gene was that we
should learn about Darwinism because it is so horrible,"
-- Richard Dawkins <from the interview I posted earlier>
This is a really interesting quote, I think. Looked at from a
reductionistic point of view, my own field (mechanics) is
extremely depressing. Here one gets a picture of the world
where there is no freedom. Everyone and everything is driven
about by external forces beyond their control. Shall I tell
my class ...
"One of the messages of the Principia (Newton) was that
we should study mechanics because it is so horrible"
Now let's take a look at the new biology:
Another concept that is deeply ingrained in biology is
competition. This is often described as the driving force
of evolution, pushing organisms willy-nilly up those
fitness landscapes to more elevated states if they are
going to survive in the struggle with their neighbors for
scarce resources. However, there is as much cooperation
in biology as there is competition. Mutualism and symbiosis,
organisms living together in states of mutual dependency--
such as lichens that combine a fungus with an alga in
happy harmony, or the bacteria in our guts, which benefit
us as well as them--are an equally universal feature of
the biological realm. Why not argue that cooperation is
the great source of innovation in evolution, ...
[...]
Competition has no special status in biological dynamics,
where what is important is the pattern of relationships
and interactions that exist and how they contribute to
the behavior of the system as an integrated whole. The
problem of origins requires an understanding of how new
levels of order emerge from complex patterns of interaction
and what the properties of these emergent structures are
in terms of their robustness to perturbation and their
capacity for self-maintenance. Then all levels of order
and organization are recognized as equally important
in understanding the behavior of living systems, and
the reductionist insistence on some basic material
level of cause and explanation, such as molecules and
genes, can be recognized as an unfortunate fashion or
prejudice that is actually bad science.
-- Brian Goodwin, <How the Leopard Changed its Spots>,
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1994, pp. 179-181.
This brought to mind my favorite Popper quote:
Although science has nothing to say about a personal
Creator, the fact of the emergence of novelty, and of
creativity, can hardly be denied.
-- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
_Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355.
>And similarly, why would a God require us to be redeemed from
>a nature that we were predestined to inherit from the very act of our
>creation?
>
Oh no, the P word. Better not say anything, I've heard there may
be Calvinists lurking about ;-). Actually, I have thought about
this some, but I'll save this for another day.
MM:====
>These are the questions with which I now struggle. My current view is that
>God (if He exists) gave me a mind. Therefore, I will try to learn of God's
>true nature with all of my faculties. I refuse to ignore science for the
>sake of my faith, and on the other hand, I also refuse to ignore the
>scientific implications of my faith. Brian seems to have been able to
>adequately separate the two in his mind, but I have not.
Well, it always seems extremely difficult to be objective about
ones own thoughts, beliefs etc. but I don't think I'm separating
things in the way you think. For example, I generally don't
hold to the view that one should have religious beliefs and
scientific beliefs and never the twain shall meet. I also tend
to challenge myself on my theology every bit as much as I do
on my science. But I don't feel particularly threatened by
either. I just thought of an analogy that I'd like to try out.
Perhaps I should really think about it some more just in case
its really stupid or something ;-), here goes anyway ...
In another thread I was giving my thoughts on the difference
between scientific facts and theories. For me scientific facts
correspond to our observations, our data, those things we
have the greatest confidence in. Theories attempt to explain
those facts. By way of analogy, I would take my personal
experience with Christ as analogous to fact. This I have the
greatest confidence in. This experience is either real or I
am crazy. If I'm crazy, well, I guess I'll be the last to
know ;-). Anyway, theology I am taking here as analogous to
theory. Theology seeks to provide some explanation for this
experience that I have had. In science, the facts will remain
even if all theories fail, likewise my experience with Christ
remains even when all of my theological musings fail.
MM:=======
>The true nature of God should be revealed in all things.
Revealed yet also concealed so that we see but only faintly.
As Pascal says:
There is enough light for those who desire only to see, and
enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition.
-- Pascal, Pensees
Actually, Pascal has helped me tremendously in this regard. Who
among us cannot identify with the following cry:
This is what I see and what troubles me. I look around
in every direction and all I see is darkness. Nature
has nothing to offer me that does not give rise to doubt
and anxiety. If I saw no sign there of a Divinity I
should decide on a negative solution: if I saw signs of
a Creator everywhere I should peacefully settle down in
the faith. But, seeing too much to deny and not enough
to affirm, I am in a pitiful state, where I have wished
a hundred times over that, if there is a God supporting
nature, she should unequivocally proclaim him, and that,
if the signs in nature are deceptive, they should he
completely erased; that nature should say all or nothing
so that I could see what course I ought to follow. Instead
of that, in the state in which I am, not knowing what I
am nor what I ought to do, I know neither my condition
nor my duty. My whole heart strains to know what the true
good is in order to pursue it: no price would be too high
to pay for eternity.
-- Pascal, Pensees
And here's something similar but with a more positive ending:
If the world existed to teach men about God, his divinity would
shine out on every hand and in a way that could not be gainsaid:
but as it only exists through Christ, for Christ, and to teach
men about their corruption and redemption, everything in it
blazes with these two truths. What can be seen on earth indicates
neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity,
but the presence of a hidden God. Everything bears this stamp.
Shall the only being who knows nature know it only to be wretched?
Shall the only one to know it be the only one to be unhappy?
He must not see nothing at all, nor must he see enough to think
that he possesses God, but he must see enough to know that he has
lost him.
-- Pascal, Pensees
I think Pascal has captured a great truth here. Throughout our lives
we constantly (or at least when we're growing) encounter tensions,
difficulties, doubts, anxieties. Why? I think Pascal answers this
brilliantly with the following (one of my favorites):
It is good to be tired and weary from fruitlessly seeking
the true good, so that one can stretch out one's arms to
the Redeemer.
-- Pascal, Pensees
I recall someone complained awhile back that everyone was being
too serious. So, I thought I would wrap up my Pascal quotes with
a little humor. I selected each of the following Pascal quotes
with some recent reflector discussion or topic in mind:
We have an incapacity for proving anything which no amount of
dogmatism can overcome. We have an idea of truth which no
amount of scepticism can overcome.
All man's dignity consists in thought, but what is this
thought? How silly it is!
Many minds are not sound. ;-)
People of that kind are academics, scholars, and that is the
nastiest kind of man I know.
Do not conclude from your apprenticeship that there is nothing
left for you to learn
It is like people who use a certain obscure language amongst
themselves; those who cannot understand it only make nonsense
of it.
I know people who cannot understand that 4 from 0 leaves 0.
We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something
in front of us to stop us seeing it.
Imagination cannot make fools wise, but it makes them happy.
MM:=====
>If this requires a rethinking of the
>Christian theology of redemption, then so be it. As an example, if Christ's
>alleged words, "I am the way and the truth and the life," are true, then
>perhaps the meaning is that Christ's vision of the unity of human spirit
>and universal love is the "way" rather than any one religion's creeds,
>theologies, or rituals.
>
My own view is that neither of the above is correct. The way is not
to be found in "unity of human spirit and universal love" nor in
"religion's creeds, theologies, or rituals". These "ways" lead
only to despair (IMHO), but hopefully to a despair causing us to
stretch out our arms to the Redeemer.
========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================