From: No name given (vampier@mac.com)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 09:26:38 MST
I'm sorry, I must take exception to this.
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 05:49 AM, Richard Ridge wrote:
> On this subject, listen to:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-
> bin//radio4/today/listen/audiosearch.pl?ProgID=1014
> 743570 (Steve Jones mincemeats some creationist)
>
> "a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the
> theory
> of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions."
>
> Misread? Where's the misreading? Evolution undermines any notion of the
> inerrancy of the Bible; god has not created man. Of course, evolution
> is a
> red herring in that respect since the Bible can be proved to be
> inaccurate
> on any number of counts.
Religious fundamentalists do, in general, believe in the literal
interpretation of "the word of God" (the Bible). This does mean that
evolution contradicts the 7 days of creation. So, some people say "it's
not a literal day" and go on about how those are just "figurative
stages" in the creation of the world as we know it. There are quite a
number of people who put things in such a way.
For every "inaccuracy" that has been "proved" to be in the Bible, I've
heard well-reasoned explanations around it. This issue is too
complicated for me to want to argue about - but know that if you want
people to argue about that with, I can hook you up.
My point is that the statement "Evolution undermines any notion of the
inerrancy of the Bible; god has not created man" is flawed - to many,
God used evolution to create man.
> "are Christians who believe that if God did not personally intervene in
> the
> development of life on earth then they have no basis for belief,
> morality,
> and the meaning of life."
>
> They are certainly correct that without it they have no basis for some
> belief - since it undermines the basis of their beleifs.
If indeed there is a God (and I'm not trying to argue for that in this
forum) and God is as omniscient as they say, then God could set up the
initial conditions of the universe and "let it run" according to the
natural laws (of physics or whatever) and voila we have our current day
existence.
God need "not personally intervene in the
development of life on earth" for a basis for belief - save for setting
up initial conditions.
> Without that one is
> left with the moribund condition of faith without mandated doctrine.
I also take exception to the use of the word "moribund" there. Faith has
a valid role for several reasons.
I'm reading "Darwinian Natural Right" by Larry Arnhart right now - in
which he argues why the "natural right" or "natural law" notion of
Aristotle is compatible - indeed, linked with - Darwin's view of
evolution. He cites a number of sources arguing for 20 universal traits
of human behavior. One of these is a natural desire to understand things
through "supernatural revelation".
Even if we set this natural desire aside, we can see how it can be a
logical consequence of human's natural desire for "justice as
reciprocity" - let me explain: we desire justice - we have an instinct
for "an eye for an eye" - yet we know and can observe that this doesn't
happen. Primates are one of the few creates that have an understanding
of "how the world should be" and attempt to make it so (female primates
have an understanding of how their children should be treated, and
attempt to enforce this on the other primates). I would argue that we
see "justice" as something that is part of "how the world should be" and
that when we see "justice" not occur, we cope with it by believing that
it will occur in an afterlife or another lifetime.
I'm not saying that it does or does not happen. I am saying that it is
perfectly natural to believe that it will. This belief can help to bring
our natural desires into a mode of satisfaction, rather than of
unsatisfaction - enabling us to be more productive at pursuing other
things, rather than trying (potentially with great harm to ourselves) to
satisfy them (and enact "justice" at cost of life/limb).
As you may have no doubt observed, I have concluded that what is best
for human nature to believe is not necessarily what is true. Please
persuade me otherwise, as I don't like such contradictions.
If you cannot conceive of faith without mandated doctrine, I'd
tentatively suggest (tentatively because I have not yet read it myself)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471392162/102-8403530-2359342
Essential Spirituality : The 7 Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind
by Roger, Md. Walsh
(The reviews suggest that this does indeed explain faith without
mandated doctrine.)
(If desired, I'll post a review of it here after I've read it.)
I'd also suggest that faith is a necessity, as various incompleteness
theorems indicate that logic (rationality) alone is insufficient for
determining all truth. You may argue that we need not determine all
truth - only relevant truth - and I would say that you won't know it's
relevance until you've determined it.
Walter Watts <wlwatts@cox.net> wrote:
> Welcome to my non-spiritual well and virtual office water-cooler.
>
> Leave all beliephs outside and kindly bring all valuable non-common,
> self-discovered truths into our sanctuary and share them freely with us.
>
> It's all we(I) ask.
I hope my comments are not too much at odds with the above - but I hope
too that with the acclaimed "virtue of rationality" you will be able to
avoid any (and I know they'd be natural - I've been around such people
before) knee-jerk reactions of "he's a theist - discredit him". I do
very much welcome rational feedback.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT