God and Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, December 26, 2009, 14:39 (5255 days ago) @ David Turell

Matt says that David's "new view of God is simply an adjustment of theology to respond to what science has shown us [...] Isn't this new theology simply a modern expression of God? How can we truly say it's better than the creationist view when, forgive me, there is no way to objectively compare theologies?"-David: "I use science to lead me to a belief in God, but one that does not fit any pre-existing theology, other than stating there is a God. You are right, God does conform to scientific findings as they study what He produced."-This is a stimulating dialogue. It seems to me that the established monotheistic religions are in an inescapable trap of their own making. All three are dependent on texts written by humans, translated by humans, and interpreted by humans. Hence the deep divisions between sects, and the impossibility of consistency in decision-making on moral issues ... like contraception, homosexuality, ordination of women ... and scientific issues like evolution. The creationist view of origins is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. There is, however, widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution in the established church. (It would be very helpful to get Mark in on this discussion.) In such cases, Genesis is taken more as an image than as the literal truth, which of course raises the problem of which sections of the Bible are or are not to be regarded as literally true. Who decides? I would say, then, that Matt's question concerning objective comparison between theologies is unanswerable, to the detriment of all institutionalized religion.-David, however, has provided his own answer, which is a real stunner. It amounts to a dismissal of all theologies. He believes in a designer called God, and science is the study of the world God created, but he does not go beyond the statement that God exists. This means that he can adapt to the findings of science as they emerge, and so long as he avoids attributing qualities to such a God, he remains free to follow his own instincts and principles in all other fields. This would never do for the established religions, and it may well be that it wouldn't do for the majority of believers. The fact is that society needs leadership, and just as we have to have a government ... even though we know our politicians are no cleverer and no more morally principled than the rest of us ... religions have to have their governing bodies, whose members are equally "human" with all that the word implies. David's form of faith works admirably for him, but without institutionalization there is no general authority, and with it there is often dubious or even downright harmful authority (e.g. papal, or fundamentalist). A case of the Devil and the deep blue sea?-However, while David's solution offers an admirable way of escaping this undesirable choice, I wonder how it is possible to form a relationship with a God of whom nothing is known except his existence.