Readers: Wall Street Journal recently published a fascinating article entitled: "Man v. God," that I think is well worth reading and contemplating. The article juxtaposes thoughts from Karen Armstrong with those from Richard Dawkins.
Karen Armstrong is a leading non-LDS theologian and former Catholic nun. Richard Dawkins is a leading evolutionist and advocate of atheism. (I am sure he is NOT sympathetic to Mormon ideas).
In the context of evolution can theologians salvage the concept of God? Is there evolutionary adaptive value to religion? These are questions I am raising in a university class that I am now teaching, which is one-third basic evolution, one-third physical anthropology, and one-third human social evolution. The course has been a lot of fun so far, and I do allow ALL students to express their opinions from any perspective, religious or scientific.
Religion is a cross-cultural universal. Mircea Eliade, a comparative theologian, has even contemplated renaming our species Homo Religiosus. Is there a genetic basis for our religious tendencies? Is it possible that religions have evolved in a manner that is consistent with biological evolution. Of course, as Latter-day Saints we believe in divine intervention and restoration of priesthood. But, my questions are in the context of a broader comparative sense of religion -- socially and cross-culturally. Do human societies operate according to natural principles?
I highly recommend reading the WSJ article linked in the first paragraph. Comments are welcome, agreeing or disagreeing with any of the issues raised in this post. I will love them all.
15 hours ago
10 comments:
Very interesting article, I'm glad you referenced it. I enjoyed reading both their takes on this issue.
I find myself wanting to argue that science has NO competency on the topic of God. Therefore, science should remain NEUTRAL to the topic.
Sure, life proceeds in an evolutionary manner. I am an avid believer in this.
But, it is a huge leap to argue that because life is evolutionary in nature, then there is probably no God. Dawkins makes this argument, and I find it to be fallacious and a misuse of scientific data. Why? Because there is no such thing as a scientific expertise on God -- one way (atheistic) or the other (theistic).
I strongly believe that evolution is NO threat to theology, but Dawkins is making that claim harder to support.
There are some interesting parallels between Dawkin's statement and what we might actually believe about perfectibility. It seems, that Dawkins actually agrees that the famous couplet "As man was god once was, as god is man may become." is actually consistent with the potential universe. Of course, Dawkins seems to go along with the protestant view that a god that did not create all out of himself is powerless and futile. Instead, we believe that a being powerful enough to control and manipulate natural forces could help shape matter out of nothingness and help direct more beings to achieve the same potential. Thus, a being as powerful as Dawkins suggests would be a God in any meaningful sense of the word.
I agree that evolution should be no threat to theology. Though I wonder if the opposite isn't true sometimes. That is, that theology shouldn't be a threat to evolution. The reason I say this is because it seems to me the science community has already accepted the notion -- or shall we say, harbors the hope -- that all meaning will eventually be traced back to a naturalistic cause.
Jack
Nice find! I've also read many of Karen Armstrong's books including The Great Transformation which is her best. I think our physical bodies are wired for religion. It is clear that Neanderthals and early humans as long as 50-30,000 years ago had practices that suggested religion--such as burial rituals. Such things actually strengthen my faith in God and point to the deep preparation it took, through evolution, natural selection, and lots of space and time, to make a suitable habitat for our spirits.
Jack:
Interesting thought. I think there is more dialog between theology and science than we often like to admit. One active exchange can be found in the journal Zygon, which I recommend examining. Both SteveP and I have published in there (separate articles).
S., that's par for the course for Dawkins. He was once a scientist, but in his enthusiastic atheist evangelism he appears to have lost or disregarded scientific reasoning ability.
SteveP, I like the idea of natural selection resulting in a suitable habitat for our spirits.
I found your blog via Google Alert and find your questions very interesting. I am a Christian who is currently reading as widely as possible to find my way through the facts of evolutionary theory to a revised understanding the first chapters of Genesis.
In my reading I have found the book "God for the Perplexed" by Keith Ward immensely helpful in addressing the question of how God has been understood through the ages. His book "Why There Almost Certainly is a God" is a fantastic riposte to Dawkins from a theologian-philosopher.
"The Language of God" by Francis Collins and "Creation or Evolution" by Denis Alexander offer interesting ideas about how Adam and Eve fit into the picture of an old earth and evolution.
Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True" is a good account of Evolution Theory for Bible believers and if Dawkins would write with the grace and wisdom of Jerry Coyne (an atheist himself) he might find a better reception.
The trouble with Dawkins is understood. His latest book, "The Greatest Show on Earth" is his attempt to do what Coyne did and is a good book but he can't help himself writing with disdain about anyone who doesn't think like him.
Armstrong's latest book, "The Case for God" needs to be approached with caution although it is interesting. She seems to play fast and loose with history, something for which she seems to have a reputation, and when she describes "faith" as it is understood by believers today I don't recognise the believers she writes about. Otherwise a good read.
Sorry to be so long-winded but I am so interested in this subject and love to share with others of a like mind. BTW I am not on commission for those titles: I really liked them :)
Mike's 4 Tea:
Astute comment. Thanks. You might find my essay Biblical Genesis corresponds with evolution interesting.
For other evolution essays, scroll down and click on the picture of Darwin on the left margin.
Thank you for your great blog! As a fellow member of the church it is great to see such well thought out and rational blog posts. I look forward to more.
Post a Comment