From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 10:46:57 MST
> 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.
If one has evolution then god is relegated to being a bystander (just as the
big bang deprives gods of any great role in the creation of the universe).
As you say, a god could indeed be 'letting it run.' But then, what use is
god under those conditions? Instead of an interventionist god whose actions
are those of a being gifted with omnipotence, this simply creates a god
whose relation to reality is not much different from that if someone
watching TV programmes - his only role is in pressing the 'on' switch. This
is not a description of a deity, it's a description of an absentee landlord.
> I also take exception to the use of the word "moribund" there. Faith has
> a valid role for several reasons.
The reason for the assertion, is that I am inclining more and more to
something approaching Emile Durkheim's view of religion; "The general
conclusion of the book which the reader has before him is that religion is
something eminently social. Religious representations are collective
representations which express collective realities; the rites are a manner
of acting which take rise in the midst of assembled groups and which are
destined to excite, maintain, or recreate certain mental states in these
groups. So if the categories are of religious origin, they ought to
participate in this nature common to all religious facts; they should be
social affairs and the product of collective thought."
Or, as Dr Johnson put it "To be of no church is dangerous. Religion, of
which the rewards are distant and which is animated only by Faith and Hope,
will glide by degrees out of the mind unless it be invigorated and
reimpressed by external ordinances, by stated calls to worship, and the
salutary influence of example." (He was prescient - with the decline of the
CofE as a part of society, so has religion declined)
As modern society has become more and more individualistic traditional
religion has essentially been left high and dry; especially as ethics have
become increasingly secularised. Religion has been splintered between
increasingly recidivist fundamentalists and liberals. The former are at
least consistent - since they regard the babble as inerrant it provides a
basis for all of their beliefs (in so far as that is possible for such a
contradictory text*). Conversely, the liberals engage in a pick and mix form
of religion, where they essentially choose which parts of their 'faith' they
wish to choose to believe in as a lifestyle accessory. All the benefits of
atheism/agnosticism (i.e. not having to believe in unpleasant doctrines)
with the added benefits of a comfort blanket.
*The fundamentalists have certainly little alternative other than to
practise a'la carte religion too, but are, I suspect markedly less given to
doing so and are probably less aware of it.
> 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".
Sounds like dubious pseudo-science to me. In anthropological terms, this
might hold true for certain primitive societies where social cohesion and a
tendency to anthropomorphise a threatening environment are likely to be
paramount concerns, but I am inclined to be sceptical as to its current
applicability.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT