gaps / continuity - evolution and God
this blog entry by memoirs of an ex-christian should push us to confront "what we already know" (i.e. think we know) when looking at matters of science. not many people do this well -- in fact, almost no one.
for example, just like everyone in his day, einstein "knew" the universe was static, eternal, and unchanging - so when relativity predicted the universe would pull itself together and collapse (if the universe wasn't infinite - which it isn't) - he created an repulsive coefficient... by pulling it out of his ASSumptions.
Paul Davies - "knows" there isn't a God - so in his books, he repeats a process where he builds up a beautiful gorgeous case revealing an elegant design / creator - and then drops into 6th grade logic for a couple pages to explain Him away.
Christians have long and distinguished history of this same stupidity. the abuses start with the arrangement of the solar system and continue on through to the big bang. i still can't comprehend how the religious community managed to react negatively to something science discovered and named the "big bang". If THAT doesn't sound like a "creation event" - I don’t know what does.
today our tradition of knowing-what-we-think-before-we-think continues into our apparent need for GAPS to exist in order for us to "have faith" that God actively created. thus any scientific notion which eliminates or reduces gaps (i.e. explains things - arguably science's job) are deemed anti-God and must be wrong. i'm missing how it could possibly be the case that continuities are an affront to God, his Glory or accomplishments.
we are here - life is here - the universe is here - and causality before time and space is difficult to speculate on. so where don’t we see God? I see God in the grass which grows - an act no less profound because we understand the processes involved.
bottom line: we dont need to be afraid of the truth. the truth will set us free 'n all that, right? let go and let science tell us the wonders it may - without feeling threatened that our world is about to come apart. because it's not. in the mean time, however - our stupidity is causing damage it really doesn't need to do.
for example, just like everyone in his day, einstein "knew" the universe was static, eternal, and unchanging - so when relativity predicted the universe would pull itself together and collapse (if the universe wasn't infinite - which it isn't) - he created an repulsive coefficient... by pulling it out of his ASSumptions.
Paul Davies - "knows" there isn't a God - so in his books, he repeats a process where he builds up a beautiful gorgeous case revealing an elegant design / creator - and then drops into 6th grade logic for a couple pages to explain Him away.
Christians have long and distinguished history of this same stupidity. the abuses start with the arrangement of the solar system and continue on through to the big bang. i still can't comprehend how the religious community managed to react negatively to something science discovered and named the "big bang". If THAT doesn't sound like a "creation event" - I don’t know what does.
today our tradition of knowing-what-we-think-before-we-think continues into our apparent need for GAPS to exist in order for us to "have faith" that God actively created. thus any scientific notion which eliminates or reduces gaps (i.e. explains things - arguably science's job) are deemed anti-God and must be wrong. i'm missing how it could possibly be the case that continuities are an affront to God, his Glory or accomplishments.
we are here - life is here - the universe is here - and causality before time and space is difficult to speculate on. so where don’t we see God? I see God in the grass which grows - an act no less profound because we understand the processes involved.
bottom line: we dont need to be afraid of the truth. the truth will set us free 'n all that, right? let go and let science tell us the wonders it may - without feeling threatened that our world is about to come apart. because it's not. in the mean time, however - our stupidity is causing damage it really doesn't need to do.
posted by P3T3RK3Y5 for meltingearth
7 Comments:
I'm really with you on that Pete. I don't even really think that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed. From some perspectives they are complementary. I get really weary of conversations meant to insulate us from the science that we think contradicts what we want the universe to be like but then gets all excited when science confirms our religious ideas.
I love hearing Christians talk this way - not being afraid of threatened by ideas or thoughts that might challenge the status quo. It's always easier and safer sticking to what the crowd believes or what everyone has always believed. But its great when we have the courage to plunge into other possibilities and alternatives and suss out the truth.
I see one of your keywords is 'emergent'. Want to share more about this? I'm part og the emergent blog that started in South Africa (www.emergentafrica.com) and was wondering if you're coming from that emergent thinking to which Brian McLaren also belongs.
Thanks for a great blog.
Great post, Pete!
cori. thanks so much for popping by and saying something. i will be checking out emergentafrica.com.
i am fortunate to live about 50 minutes from brian's church and started my emergent journey at a conference held there. brian is one of the few whose *method* of communicating resonates with *what* he is communicating.
so i am very much as you put it "coming from that emergent thinking" - with a bit of an emphasis on the idea of *coming from*. you'll notice my keyword hyperlinks to wikipedia - not emergent village. this is due to my concern that this word is taking on a life of it's own and has become a brand name - and ... we've almost forgotten what it means - if we ever knew!
the term 'emergence' itself is rich with meaning and concept and idea - and it is precisely those notions i find most needed to the emergent (TM) conversation.
grace, peace and blessings to you and your community in South Africa.
I found a blog yesterday which exists only for the purpose of critiquing and debunking the emergent movement. It's called Emergent No. I was rather amazed that people would feel so strongly that the emergent movement is a threat to the church and Christianity, and even a cult! But I've read some of the posts with the purpose of challenging my own position and some of their points are valid.
Thank you for linking back to my blog, and for your kind words.
This is an excellent post. I’ve often wondered why some people have such a problem with scientific discovery, and maybe – and I could be wrong here – it has to do with the paradigms that they hold.
I think the theist who finds meaning through mystery is the theist who might feel uneasy with scientific discoveries that challenge her/his faith. This is simply because science is in the business of solving mysteries, and those who hold solely onto mystery as their inspiration will feel threatened when mystery begins to evaporate under scientific discovery.
However, the theist who finds God through understanding is the theist who will embrace scientific discovery, no matter where it leads. The early scientists, most of whom were Christian, based their faith on understanding – they drew their inspiration from discovering the complexities and wonder of what they saw as God’s creation.
Present day theists who base their faith on the love of understanding might see the evolutionary process, for example, as something that God ordained – an example of his creative power.
Now, how do I apply this idea to non-theists . . .
All the best
Kevin
Memoirs of an ex-Christian
kevin
thanks for stopping by. i'm honored by the dialogue.
that breakdown is very interesting. i think your journey has blessed you with an ability to see validity and understanding in viewpoints with markedly different perspectives. i'm envious of that ability.
i do see God through *understanding* - and i need to consider not everyone necessarily would see God that same way. that being said... i think that if were talking about God we're really talking about mystery - due primarily to that one thing about God being infinite in more than a few ways. so we theists need to get comfortable with mystery if we’re not already.
that being said - it is difficult for me to discern if it is truly those who appreciate *mystery* that want to remain ignorant to what science says - a view i could almost respect. Or if it is those who appreciate the *understanding* aspect who want to remain ignorant to what science says - a view i suggest needs a larger perspective.
my suspicion is the modernity in christianity (and a "faith" made up of *facts* - the irony their being quite evident) has produced a fear of letting go into the unknown of new truths -- a paradigm that could have equal hold over both the mystery/understanding preference.
so this does come down to paradigms...
undoubtedly what we "know" today is wrong/incomplete as well.
...
i will follow your blog with interest. interesting the parallel paths in our respective journey's. peace to you.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home