Re: [asa] NY Times: Darwin's God

*What science observes is a universal existence of religious beliefs and
thus science attempts to explain this in terms open to scientific inquiry.*

Which simply begs the question whether religious beliefs are properly open
to scientific inquiry. And which is why I raised my initial concern about
applying methodological naturalism to religious beliefs. In our theological
understanding of a contingent material universe, there is good reason to
presuppose that things like animals, rocks and galaxies can be fruitfully
examined in terms of secondary causes. In our theological understanding of
God as being apart from creation and of human beings as having a spiritual
nature, it seems to me there are not equally good reasons to presuppose that
something like religious belief can be fruitfully explained with reference
only to secondary causes.

*I could see a perspective in which God created the Universe and we are the
outcome of a long process. In other words, the primary cause is Creation and
evolution is a secondary cause. At least from a Christian perspective such a
position would seem to make sense to me.*

I could see that perspective as well, if we also add the crucial notions
that (a) God exists entirely apart from creation; (b) the created order is
contingent on God's will; and (c) human beings, being made in the image of
God, possess a spiritual nature that may be dependent upon, but is not
entirely reducible to, social and/or biological evolution. As far as I can
tell, other than the one Christian interviewed in that article, any notion
of "god" arising from the reductionistic views represented therein would at
best be a panentheistic one in which god is not ontologically apart from
creation but emerges from creation as it evolves.

I have to reference again Stephen Baxter's atrocious sci-fi novel
"Transcendent," which plays out this panentheistic-emergence position very
well. In Baxter's novel, the god-emergence is a post-human hive
mind. Baxter's Catholic priest character waxes on about "Marxist historical
determinism, socialist utopianism, and deeper wells of Slavic theology and
nationalism [and] a 'Cosmism,' which [involves] ultimate unity between man
and the universe." This, IMHO, is the theological trajectory of most of
these strong evolutionary theories of religious belief.

On 3/7/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which of course does not mean that this 'evolutionary mechanism' whether
it be a spandrel or an adaptive pathway, did not arise with a purpose.
> What science observes is a universal existence of religious beliefs and
thus science attempts to explain this in terms open to scientific inquiry.
>
> Indeed, if a belief can be explained by some mechanism external to whether
or not such a thing exists, it is by faith that we come to accept the
existence of such an entity.
>
> From a scientific perspective there are various possible pathways, none of
which address the veracity of religious beliefs. What these scientists are
doing is finding an explanation for the widespread religious beliefs via
experiment, and logic.
>
> <quote>Put another way, from a Christian perspective, is it justifiable to
presuppose that belief in God can be explained at any level with reference
only to secondary causes? I don't think so. </quote>
>
> But as such it need not be at odds with the scientific perspective. I
could see a perspective in which God created the Universe and we are the
outcome of a long process. In other words, the primary cause is Creation and
evolution is a secondary cause. At least from a Christian perspective such a
position would seem to make sense to me.
>
> From a scientific sense however, the appeal to such 'primary causes' does
not seem to be very satisfactory. Perhaps this may be a 'shortcoming' of
science but I see it more as a limitation of science.
> Certain questions my not be open to resolution by science. Of course we
should be careful not to let such a position guide us to accept that which
we do not understand as somehow an act of God.
>
> David again
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rich, the comparison to Augustine's "God-shaped vacuum" is interesting,
but I"m not sure whether you're suggesting it's a favorable comparison. I
don't think it is. Though that closing paragraph says science might not be
able to close the "gap" in our understanding of human longing, it seems to
me that most of the scientists surveyed are trying to do exactly that. If a
sense of longing for God is merely an evolutionary
>
>
> There is a difference between perhaps being unable to close the gap, and
trying to do so. After all, that is what science is doing
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > byproduct, the next step ought to be to move human evolution "forward,"
through biotechnology or other means, to eliminate that
longing. Augustine's "vacuum" is
>
>
> Poor logic. There is nothing to suggest that eliminating that longing will
move human evolution forward. If any, human evolution moved forward because
of this longing
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > rooted in a completely different ontology and anthropology, which
presupposes a real God and a real alienation. I can't see how that can be
easily reconciled with the reductionistic view of the God-sense this article
seems to discuss.
>
> Very easily, science does not deal with the concept of a God.
Reconciliation can be trivial as well as complex depending on which position
of faith one takes. I fail to see how these scientific endeavors somehow are
unreconciliable with God.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 8 09:54:43 2007