The Facts of Life: Why Evolution And Christianity Won’t Play Nice
The latest contender in the Republican presidential race–Rick Perry–questions the validity of evolution, much like some of his Republican counterparts (Bachmann, Palin, former president Bush, and many others). In a recent question posed by the Washington Post, various heavy-hitters in the secular world weighed in on the governor’s opinion on the subject of evolution. Here is the question they were asked to write about:
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
I won’t pretend that I can answer this as eloquently as Richard Dawkins or Paula Kirby (two writers and thinkers I greatly respect), but I want to briefly outline my own thoughts on the issue. As a disclaimer, I’ll note that I am not a biologist, I have no formal training beyond basic college science, and this is purely my opinion on the issue. Now, to business.
Thirty-eight percent of Americans. Thirty-eight. To put that in perspective, more Americans believe in ghosts than evolution, according to a 2005 CBS survey, with over 45% of those surveyed claiming to believe in supernatural spirits. Thirty-eight percent. This number distresses me greatly, because clearly people do not understand evolution, and their ignorance of it may well be causing a gradual loss of the US edge in the global marketplace of ideas. Teaching creationism in schools? Next we’ll be expected to “teach both sides” of everything, as this cartoon illustrates. Okay, maybe the sketch is a bit over-the-top, but I don’t see it as an entirely far-fetched idea. I’ll touch on that again in a moment.
First, I want to clear something up right now: Evolution is not a “theory” in the colloquial sense of the word “theory”. When we use the word “theory” in everyday speech, we mean something that’s unsubstantiated, unclear, or loosely defined. But in scientific speech, “theory” is basically the opposite: it’s something that’s been tested and proven extensively, and has mountains of evidence to support it. We talk about other theories in science all the time (theory of gravity, theory of relativity), yet no one seems to question those ”theories”. Why? As the prompt above ponders, what is it about evolution that’s so threatening to religion?
Christianity–in particular, fundamentalist Christianity–has major beef with evolution for three basic reasons: first, evolution (by this I mean the fact that human beings arose from other species, as did every living thing on Earth) conflicts with the teachings of the Bible; second, evolution severely diminishes the role of God in the formation of humankind; and third, evolution denies humans a share of God-imparted meaning in their lives. The first critique is easy to support: nowhere in the Bible does it explain evolution or even postulate at it. The Genesis creation story very clearly outlines how God made the Universe. If one takes a hardline approach and interprets Genesis literally, there’s zero room for evolution. Even if one takes a more apologetic approach and posits Genesis as a metaphor, it’s still rather difficult to explain why said chapter of the Bible is brimming with things that evolution disproves. Furthermore, many Christian doctrines rely on the notion that humans are special, unique, and hold a higher status than other creatures on the planet, all due to their direct connection via creation to God: for example, Catholic teaching regarding the dignity of persons relies on the notion that humans are made in the “image and likeness of God”, and thus deserve to be treated well by merit of that fact alone. If evolution is true, humans weren’t made in any particular image or likeness: they just are. This ties nicely into my next points.
My second and third reasons are harder to substantiate, so allow me a paragraph to do so. Evolution undermines God’s role in the creation of living things because it requires a massive amount of time in which to work. Evolution does not happen quickly. Millions upon millions of years are needed for the system to do its job. Ignoring the timelines presented in the Bible for a moment, we can just examine the raw logic of the thing: why would God create this strange little rock in space, drop a few unique proteins onto it, and then kick back for, oh, 3.5 billion years or so, just waiting? It’s as though God placed a couple seeds in a pot of soil and then sat there staring at it, watching them grow. But wait… He’s, um, God. Why not just snap those omnipotent fingers and create humans out of nothing? What reason would God have for not doing this, especially if He desired companionship, something to love, an intelligent creature to share His universe with, or any of the other numerous reasons given for why humans exist? Which brings me to my third point: with evolution, believers must face the possibility that humans do not exist for any specific reason whatsoever. We could have just as easily been borne of a canine race, or a bovine or reptilian one. We could have just as easily come into existence with radically different body or mental systems than the ones we have. We do not exist because someone carefully drew up a blueprint for the human being (and if someone did, they’re kind of a pitiful architect. Blind spot in the eye? Wisdom teeth? Male nipples? Come on). We exist because raw, unthinking forces of nature shaped us out of particles and dust. There is no “higher” reason with evolution. Many believers don’t like this idea; they remain convinced that God made humans on purpose, specifically, and that there must be a bigger meaning to everything.
So, in summation of the above: evolution scares some believers because it implies three world-shattering things: that part of the Bible is not literally true (pretty bad for a fundamentalist, not as bad for a more liberal person), that God didn’t play as big a role in humanity’s existence as one might wish (for why would God let evolution run its course, if he had a very exacting idea of what He wanted as the end result?), and that humans may not exist for any specific reason (in direct contradiction to the majority of Christian doctrine). Evolution and Christianity won’t play nice because they hold radically different views. This is why many Christian politicians, especially hardline ones like Rick Perry, are so hell-bent on teaching creationism in schools: they can’t stomach the idea that they might be wrong about what they believe.
And thus we come to the problem of trying to “teach both sides” I mentioned before, and why it’s only the first step on a slippery slope. I’m not really fond of slippery slope arguments most of the time, but given the trends I’ve observed in our nation these past ten years or so, I’m not ruling anything out anymore. It is clear now that the aim of many Christian politicians (especially on the right) is to make the United States an increasingly Christian nation. Teaching creationism as a valid scientific notion is both an insult to science and a strong means of undermining secularism (not to mention a powerful reminder of Christian privilege in the US, but that’s a topic for another post). It’s only step one. Beyond this, it’s not hard to imagine Christian lawmakers mandating that other disciplines in the school (English, History, Social Studies, etc.) include Christian topics in their coursework, as a means of “teaching both sides”. You may read some Shakespeare, students, but you’ll also need to sample excerpts from Deuteronomy and 1st Corinthians (gotta see both sides, right?). Sure, we can learn about Middle Eastern history, but only if we present a positive version of the Crusades as well (keep it fair! Teach both sides!). As students become more and more inundated with Christian teaching, they’ll have a harder and harder time doing two very important things: thinking critically, and separating truth from fantasy. This will (we’ve already seen it happening) cause a downshift in US power around the world; other developed nations aren’t teaching their kids this creationist tripe, and those kids are turning into smarter adults.
There are so many reasons why teaching creationism in schools is a bad idea. There are so many reasons why evolution isn’t accepted by many Christians. What I’ve touched on above is just a small fraction of the full picture. I’ll leave you with this, as a form of fully addressing the initial question: Rick Perry and other Republican candidates who have problems with evolution make me very scared for the future of our nation. These people are vying for the position of president. I’ve always thought our leaders should be the best, brightest, and most capable among us, but clearly others do not share my vision, not when people who can dismiss years of scientific data and instead turn their eyes skyward are under serious consideration for the role. It is a sad thing indeed that this is how deeply entrenched our nation is in superstition and dogmatic adherence to outdated custom. Enough is enough: evolution is true, creationism is false, and we need to stop validating those who think otherwise. If we do nothing and allow this trend to continue–and believe me, it will, unless something dramatic happens–I fear my future children will live in a Christian nation instead of a free one… and that thought terrifies me more than any image of Hell a preacher could ever paint.
Intriguing thoughts. I found your statement on evolution in the perspective of God most captivating. It’s a very sharp, double edge sword. While a biologist, I must admit I empathize with Christian custom. If we are free in speech, we SHOULD be free in belief, assuming our intentions are not hostile or too imposing (ex. The holocaust or gay rights suppression). However, eradicating prejudice from confrontation is much easier said than done. It’s one bad argument, and there’s a lot of converting attempts going on for both sides. Heck, I had Jehovah’s Witnesses at my door last week giving me a pamphlet refuting evolution. The counter-arguments inside made me so angry that my sister nearly ripped it from my hands and threw it out. Therefore (though I stand my ground on evolution) I can’t help but feel hypocritical—I’m just as passionate as the Jehovah’s witness, but on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Thank you for your thoughts, Kelly. You’ve touched on a very interesting point, and I believe you’ve inspired my next entry (which I’ll put up in a few days).
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you feel hypocritical when you defend evolution or promote its truth. I think I get what you mean. It does seem odd to defend something with the same sort of fervor that a religious person might defend their belief, but then to say they’re the crazy one and you’re sane? Seems downright inappropriate. More to the point: you feel that being passionate about evolution is just as “bad” as being passionate about, say, creationism.
But think about it this way: what is the main difference between creationism and evolution? What is the one fundamental thing they do not share?
Evidence.
For example, suppose we enter a room and see muddy footprints on the carpet. You observe someone in the kitchen with dirty shoes, and draw the reasonable conclusion that they’ve trekked across the rug to reach the other room. I, however, posit that mysterious “filth fairies” came and left these shoe-shaped markings on the floor as a sign of their presence in the home. I, of course, cannot provide any evidence of my claim, while you can point to the person’s shoes and say, “That’s what did it.” Would you feel hypocritical defending your claim then, even if I fervently told you I knew filth fairies were real? What if I gave you a pamphlet all about the filth fairies? What if I built a religion around the filth fairies? It still wouldn’t make what I was saying true.
It’s my opinion that the person with the logical reasoning is the one people should be listening to, and that person should not feel like they’re just “telling one side of the story”. Your thought (dare I say hypothesis?) about the muddy shoes isn’t unrealistic, unreasonable, or even particularly complicated. More importantly, it’s right!
The tl;dr of all this: You aren’t defending something that has no evidence. You aren’t just postulating “one side of the story”, and leaving out some other major chunk of what’s going on. The burden of proof does not rest on you when you’ve made a logical claim; it rests on the person who wants to deny that logic and instead present a different view.
All valid points. I’m thinking back to the Jehovah’s Whiteness pamphlet again. The thing that angered me was how unsubstantiated evidence, or in some cases contradicting statements, were used to attest power of God. For instance, “There are gaps in the evolution timeline, therefore the evidence is nonlinear, showing no definitive progression for evolution.” not word for word, but this was the gist. To me, this was taking a single snippet of a cornucopia of research and twisting it to fit specific aims. Yes, for heaven’s sakes, question science, as only in further exploration will we achieve greater understandings and firmer platforms for other research. However, the pamphlet’s statements were much more manipulative than truly convincing. Evolution has gaps, but the presence of gaps hardly equates to complete abolition of a painstakingly studied theory. To an untrained eye (or one simply unwilling to explore behind anything mendacious), evolution seemed improbable in most of these (weakly supported) cases. Other examples were downright false! “Science shows no changes in fish over the last millenea, but great changes in ungulates. Biologists find these inconsistencies because they are not using consistent methodology, causing them to see errors in the data.”
It’s a very ‘butterfly’ way of thinking. A butterfly does not see a tree move in its two weeks of life. Therefore the tree is not a living thing. A human in eighty years of life (or even a collection of generations reading the written words of their ancestors) see no evolution in their backyard deer. Therefore evolution is a fantasy.
Oh, golly, I just thought of something—breeding of domestic animals; evolution in its shortest form. I might have to look that up– How do devote Christian’s (well, those whom interpret Genesis word for word) rebuke evolution while breeding their labradoodles?
I think one of the unfortunate assumptions made by both hardcore scientists and Christians is that the presence of one faith obliterates the other. Now, I’m agnostic, leaning on the side of atheist because I embrace science fairly quickly. When translating the Bible word for word, the geologist is going to have a lot of trouble buying a universal flood during the time of humans. A biologist is going to wonder why Noah was so stupid as to only take two of every kind of animal and assume everything would go hunky-dorey (no wonder the unicorns died out, haha). However, it’s refreshingly enlightening to encounter a Christian whom is open to sciences and the ambiguity of their own beliefs, vice versa (if you’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting such a person). To many of these people, the earth was NOT created in seven days, only the Bible condenses them to an attainable scope for the reader. Maybe Jesus was not borne from a virgin, but indeed a great man whom impressed good values. Maybe evolution has happened, is happening, and God is some sort facilitator, pulling strings in ways that we cannot possibly fathom (or maybe sitting back and watching the potting soil germinate for a science fair project against Zues and Sheba).
That may be mumbo jumbo. This is merely the other side of the story, and in the very least, isn’t a perspective completely convoluted with myopic viewpoints. After all, the Bible was (most likely) written by mortal man, and once you get a person whom is willing to take this in stride, it becomes easier to except the falsities.
Thank you for the response. I’m feeling a little less guilty for smiting the door-bell ringers. Your filth fairy example was very well founded.
Are you familiar with the argument known as “the God of the gaps”? This concept is used to describe a curious phenomenon that occurs as science continues to penetrate into areas once controlled strictly by religion. In short, the more that science is able to reveal, the less there is for God to control (and thus the “smaller” God becomes), since once science has outlined how something works there’s no need for a supernatural explanation. This applies to evolution quite well: for a long time, the only explanation for human existence anyone could come up with involved a spiritual view. “God did it”, is a good way to describe this type of thinking. Once evolution came along, however, God could no longer fill that “gap” in our reasoning about where we came from, since now there was a perfectly natural explanation for everything. Thus, for some Christians, God shrank: He hadn’t built humans from scratch after all. For others, denial was the only option available. Since they couldn’t face letting God’s role in humanity’s existence become smaller, their only recourse was to deny that the theory was correct. And thus we arrive at today’s anti-evolutoin rhetoric: the gaps in our understanding of evolution get smaller every day, yet believers will always try to push God into those gaps, and claim that the whole theory must be wrong if they can find even one hole in it.
I like your butterfly analogy. It’s an apt way of putting things. I wonder: to a tree (if it could perceive), what must humans look like? What about the Earth? Would a being who lived millions of years see the Earth as a living creature?
Labradoodles: proof that God does not exist
It is very important to note the following: science is not a faith. This can be tricky, so I’ll try to make it more clear. We use the word “faith” in many different ways, and much like the word “theory”, the various ways have radically different meanings. When we talk about “having faith in [someone or something]“, we’re saying that we believe they will succeed or follow through on their promises, due in part to past experiences with this person or thing. So this is based on evidence. Similarly, saying we “have faith in” science or evolution is a way of saying, “Despite a small lack of evidence, most of what I know points to this being true.” Contrast this with the religious view of the word “faith”: in this case, it means “to believe something without (or in spite of contrary) evidence”. That is a radically different kind of statement from the previous definitions. It’s the reason why a person with faith in science can change their mind about which scientific theories are true–based on evidence for new discoveries–while a person of religious faith will not change their views no matter what is placed in front of them. Thus, to address your point in brief: science and religion are not incompatible on the grounds that they express “two sides” of a story. If they are incompatible, it is because one is based on superstition, tradition, and dogma, while the other is based on logic, reason, and evidence. Science can adapt to new discoveries. Religion can’t.
Although you do speak of religious believers who seem to adapt to a changing scientific landscape. And I applaud such believers (okay, maybe more like a tiny golf clap). Their attitude seems to be, “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”, and if that means fewer people trying to tell me there really were dinosaurs on the Ark, all the better. There is a caveat here, however: suppose the Bible is just a collection of stories, most or all of which are untrue (or at least grossly exaggerated). If that’s the case… why have a religion at all? If Jesus was just some dude, why worship him? If God doesn’t really intervene in our lives, why pray? There’s a lot more to say on this topic, but I won’t go any further than to add this: liberal, mumbo-jumbo forms of Christianity, while perhaps not as bad as their fundamentalist cousins, still share the fatal flaw of being rooted in fantasy instead of reality. And thus they remain as source of distraction from true scientific and social progress.
All told I do kinda hope we’re a science fair project. That’d be rad. Wonder what Zeus and Sheba came up with for their projects…
Hey Mark, it’s John; your former housemate.
I think this is an interesting topic, and one that needs to be addressed head on. There is a real danger in allowing Creationism to be taught as “science” in schools: to do so would require us to change the definition of the word “science”. I feel like persons who consider themselves Protestant who also espouse Creationism need to be brought to task, as they are either being dishonest or willfully ignorant when addressing this issue.
The simple way to test if someone (or yourself) is truly being honest and open minded is to evaluate whether or not they (or yourself) are looking at an issue from “top-down” or “bottom-up” reasoning. True science is most definitely bottom-up, which means that is collects all relevant facts and builds theories based on those facts collected; it essentially lets the facts lead to the conclusion. “Top-down” reasoning implies that you have a pre-conceived conclusion about something, and you collect facts that support that conclusion while dismissing facts which contradict it. It takes courage to truly be a bottom-up thinker, as you can never really get comfortable with your own understanding of the world, as you realize that if logic and relevant facts contradict your beliefs, then your beliefs are incorrect and need to change.
What is unfortunate in this whole debate is that the narrative has somehow become “science vs. religion”, when there needs to be no such dichotomy. As far as the Catholic Church (for example) is concerned, science is simply a tool which helps us understand the universe we live in. If a conclusion about something is formed through the scientific method and stands up to logical scrutiny, the Catholic Church accepts it “as is”. In fact, religious peoples throughout the ages (Muslims, Catholics, Protestants…) have made enormous contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
I understand the frustration with the inanity coming from powerful Protestant organizations and politicians regarding this and other issues. However, that shouldn’t lead someone to conclude that this small group of Protestants’ somehow represents “Religion” in this debate. It’s holding up the lowest common denominator as the median.
Personally, I think science and religion could be best buddies; they just need to understand each other a little better.
Hi John, thanks for your comment!
I couldn’t agree more with your first paragraph. Creationism is absolutely not science, and should not be named or treated as such. Those who do so are, as you put it, “dishonest or willfully ignorant”. Your second point about “top-down” and “bottom-up” reasoning is well-stated and quite valid; however, I’ll get back to it again in a moment.
Reading the first sentence of your third paragraph, you seem uncertain why there is antagonism between science and religion. Here’s one reason: the Church persecuted scientists for hundreds of years, often quite violently. If that doesn’t start some beef between the two, I don’t know what would. But you’re on target in saying that there needn’t be such a huge divide. I’m glad the Catholic Church has embraced science rather than sticking its fingers in its ears like many of the fundamentalist churches in the US. And it’s good for everyone when religion lets go of outdated dogma and absorbs scientific knowledge, thus allowing it to–dare I say–evolve. The two should be buddies, like you said.
But they’re not. And I think there’s one very good reason why: many Christians and Christian churches (generalization; not all) only make use of science when it’s convenient for them to do so. To quote John Locke:
Christians and Christian groups who do this are using “bottom-up” reasoning for some of their beliefs and “top-down” for others. When a new scientific discovery fits well with existing theology or does not otherwise change an important part of their belief system, such groups are happy to adapt (for example, discoveries in physics that have little bearing on daily life, or evolution in the case of the Catholic Church [though I will point out that it took quite a long time for the Church to accept that notion]). But as soon as science begins pushing into a realm “owned” by religion, those groups shriek like someone stomped on their toes. “Science has no place here,” they’ll say. “Don’t put God to the test. We believe because we have faith; you can’t prove anything here.” A great example of this is the mind/body problem and idea of souls: as neuroscience advances and continues to explain more and more of the brain’s functions, the space for the soul as the locus of personality shrinks and shrinks. Yet many if not all Christian groups still have a strong belief in immaterial souls.
Ultimately, the reason I think science and religion tend not to get along is because most religions are fair-weather friends to science. If more religions actively changed to meet new scientific discoveries, there’d be less of a divide.
As a self-described christian myself (there’s probably a better phrase for my beliefs but I always forget what it’s called) I always get really depressed listening to people talk about science and evolution like they’re threats to God. I’m the kind of person who would think about some new scientific breakthrough in terms of “Yes! One step closer to robots/personal jetpacks/genetically engineered dinosaurs!” before thinking in terms of my faith, but when I do I never feel like anything disproves God. It just disproves the Bible.
For one thing, it’s easy for me to see why the Bible cannot be trusted. For a few simple things, the Bible has been translated so many times through so many languages to get where we are today that it’s hard to imagine that nothing got changed or lost along the way. For fuck’s sake modern translators can’t even agree on some translations between English and German, and those two evolved (haha) from the same root language. And that’s not even getting into different dialects from the same language.
Second, it’s blatantly obvious to anyone who’s studied history (or played the Assassin’s Creed games) that the Catholic Church has a very long, sordid and nasty history of corruption, even up to the Pope. And there were times when priests were more or less the only people who could read at all, much less read the Bible. It’s just impossible for me to believe that something THAT corrupt would have held the book so sacred that they wouldn’t twist it for their own means.
But the biggest reason for me to not care about the Bible despite believing in God is that I think it’s extremely naive to anthropomorphize Him. This is either the worst way to describe my beliefs, or the BEST way, but I think of God as more like a lovecraftian creature than like a man. Something so far beyond our realm of understanding that gazing upon it would leave you a gibbering, drooling mess on the floor. In those terms, I think it’s entirely possible for us to be a big fat cosmic accident (which, incidentally I find really cool). Of course, a good portion of the human population are probably accidents in a different sense.
Also, Zeus’ science project is lightning. It’s always lightning, he does the same thing every damn year *shakes fist*
Hey Kev. Thanks for your comment.
I think the word you might be looking for is “deist”. It sounds like you have more of a “clockwork universe” understanding of things, which is to say that God does not intervene or muck about in the affairs of people or nature. Thus, observing a natural phenomenon that was explained in the Bible as the work of God does nothing to harm your impression of God, because the God you see just set things in motion and backed off.
But there are two big problems with this idea. First, if the Bible is largely debunked, from whence do your ideas about God come? How do you know anything about God, if you don’t have the Bible as a starting point? And second, why even posit a God at all in this case? If the world and universe can be explained through natural means, without any need for supernatural interventions, then why even hold a view that any sort of god exists? Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply say that the Universe is the way it is because that’s just the way it is? Occam’s Razor and all that.
This is all assuming I’m understanding your views correctly, of course.
It would be pretty cool if God were Cthulhu. But I think we’d have a lot more tentacles in our world if that were true.
At least Zeus didn’t build a model volcano this year. Last time he did that he wiped out Pompeii.
Deism may be right, I’m sure I read a definition of some other kind of “ism” the lined up really well with my beliefs though.
The idea that God created the universe and then backed off is… as likely as anything else in my opinion. It seems just as likely that He created us by accident, and other possibilities. I think what I was trying to get at with my Lovecraft comparison is that I think that God is inherently unknowable. It’s like trying to understand higher dimensional space (4th dimension, 5th, 6th etc.) but even that doesn’t feel right to say it like that because I do believe that humanity can understand and master those things given enough time.
As to why I believe, It would seem to come down to the definition of faith: belief despite the absence of evidence. Disproving God is impossible (proving a negative and all that jazz) so to me it feels like I have a choice now as to whether or not to believe in God, rather than when I was a kid and it was just presented to me as a fact. I’m not gonna deny that the Bible is why I believed in the first place, but for all my thought on the subject, this is just what makes the most sense to me. Maybe I’m making the choice to believe based on emotions rather than logic, but I think it’s perfectly valid as long as I don’t use my faith to try and defy actual tangible evidence (creationism museum *facepalm*)
Also, don’t remind me of Pompeii. That was almost as bad as the time that Loki did a volcano project and started Ragnarok.
Ah, I understand a bit better now. I’m not sure what word I’d used to describe what you believe, but then again, it’s not really important how others label you. What you label yourself is what matters.
Let me ask you this: if God is inherently unknowable–that is, if there is no possible way for us to understand Him–then why even believe in Him at all? Wouldn’t the universe look exactly the same without such a deity? What purpose or function does such a belief hold? And does it not trouble you that there is no way for you to ever verify the truth of what you believe, even in the smallest way? For if God is totally unintelligible, any action He takes will be lost on you.
You also say that it’s valid to believe something based on emotion rather than logic… but only as long as you don’t use that faith (thank you for defining faith, by the way!) to deny “actual tangible evidence”. Putting this in reverse, you might say it’s valid to look at things that have no evidence against them and believe those things. For example, I might say that there’s a teapot orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit that precisely mirrors Earth’s, thus keeping it out of sight at all times. Also, it’s far too small for us to see even with our most powerful telescopes and satellites. But trust me, it’s there! This example, while silly, serves to illustrate my point, which I’ll make clear now: since one can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it’s perfectly fine to believe in it without any reason to do so. But this means it’s also equally valid to believe in anything that can’t be proven false. And while this may seem acceptable to some, I find the whole notion rather alarming, because it invites people to conjure up anything they wish and be told their stance is totally reasonable and valid, which is not a situation I wish to promote.
I’d say that you’re exactly right in that it’s equally likely that He doesn’t exist at all. But as to what purpose my belief serves, I would say that it really only concerns my own spirituality and how I come to define myself and my place in the world. I feel as though meditating on the nature of God has helped me understand myself better. I’m not saying that I’m enlightened or anything, I’ve got way too dirty of a mind to claim that, but I just think of my belief as a way of growing as a person step by step. Back when I read your story of how you came to question God and the church activities you were a part of I think that you grew a lot through those experiences and from questioning those things that you always took as true.
As for the old Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, I’d say that I wouldn’t take your word that there’s a teapot around the Sun without some serious considerations, like the likelyhood of that being true vs the physics involved vs how much do I trust you etc etc…
It might help clarify my position to say that I view faith as a very personal matter that really should be something you don’t push on others a la conversion and the like. If someone were to say to me, “I want to talk to you about God.” my response would probably be something like, “No thanks. I don’t kiss and tell.”
Wow, I cannot keep these short can I?
I’m not going to do my argument full justice here, but I see in your argument an apparent dualism created where I see none. If you define ‘God’ as you are using it, then yes, there is a dualism between Science and Creationism. However, your definition of God is not my definition of God. For me, God is an Infinite Universal Intelligence, Love, an Eternally Affirming Flow of Energy, etc., the concept of which mere words cannot fully capture. I see Evolution as a DEMONSTRATION of the existence of God, and I am always amazed at how Science comes closer and closer to embracing this definition of God. If one always looks for the differences between things/idas, one will always find separation.
Many people read the Bible as a literal history, as is the way of many Protestant Christian religions. The Bible read in this way never made sense to me until I began hearing it interpreted metaphysically. Despite my considerable predjuidices against the Bible and Christian religion, I am now finding this document a rich and inspiring source.
Hi Kriss. Thanks for your comment!
I’m not sure I note the dualism in my original post that you’re seeing. In the OP, I discuss why fundamentalist and mainstream Christian faiths do or might have a problem with evolution (to be specific, macroevolution, or the notion that humans evolved from other creatures). It’s only in the comments that I and others discuss a dichotomy between science and religion. Nevertheless, I’m inclined to agree: Given the definition of God you provide, there may not be any kind of divide.
But that definition is not without worries of its own. A few questions, if I may:
1) Where do you get your idea of what God is (Infinite Universal Intelligence, Love, etc.)?
2) How do you know any of God’s features or traits? From the Bible? From another source?
3) How is evolution a demonstration of God’s existence? Where do you see God in the theory of evolution?
4) In what way does science “come closer” to “embracing” the definition of God you provide? My understanding of science is that science is a methodology or a way of thinking, not a belief system.
5) If you do not believe in the God of the Bible (for the Bible is quite clear about its definition of God), what about that book do you find inspiring or helpful?
6) Do you practice any kind of worship of the God you’ve described, and if so, why?
1 & 6) I practice a form of New Thought called Religious Science, known these days as Center for Spiritual Living. (See Wikipedia’s definitions and it has nothing to do with Scientology.) Some people call it a religion, others a science, and others a philosphy.
2) I ultimately know God from within. But I learn about God through reading, attending servicews/meetings, and spiritual practice that cetners around devoping my intuition.
3) Evolution is a demonstration of God’s existence in that that the animal or plant needed to transform in some manner to survive. As Spirit is an affirming energy, always saying ‘yes’ to any thought, Spirit said ‘yes’ to the need to transform, or evolve.
4) A very loaded topic. Isn’t there a belief in a methodology of thinking? Anyway, part of the meaning of the term, Religious Science, is that one experiences results/demonstrations of one’s spiritual practice. If a certain practice isn’t working, then don’t do it and try something else instead.
5) I do believe in the God of the Bible, just not the way that that some of today’s Christians interpret the Bible. I believe in One God, many paths.
These are rather brief responses to complex topics, but I hope it gives some overview to these concepts.
Interesting ideas. Thanks for answering my questions. I’ll take a look at the Wikipedia page as well. Being an atheist I do have some, shall we say, concerns with some of what you’ve stated, but I don’t think now is the best time to dive into that debate
That… sounds very interesting. I think I’m going to have to look into this as well.
For me it’s fairly simple: Science is science; faith is faith. Creationism has no place in the realm of science and to equate the two goes beyond betraying the scientific community — it betrays the definition of the word.
As a physicist and a Christian I see no problem with combining science and faith. In fact, throughout my life I have been surrounded by Christians who did that quite automatically, as if it wasn’t even up for debate. After all, if Jesus spoke in parables, would it not make sense that God’s word would use similar techniques?
I would go even further. To deny science is an *insult* to God. One of our greatest gifts as a species is our intelligence. To bypass it in such a blatant way is to throw that gift back in his face.
So on the whole I agree with your post.
However, your suggestion that the large time period of evolution is somehow an issue is rather baffling to me. I suppose it makes sense considering what some Christians say about evolution, but it doesn’t compute in my area of Christianity.
I don’t think you can put such simple reasoning on an inherently unfathomable entity. The bible itself tells us that God is beyond human understanding. It also implies that God is timeless. Waiting billions of years seems like a non-issue. Personally I think it’s an elegant and beautiful form of creation; it essentially implies that creation is still happening. I don’t think God necessarily did have an “exacting idea” of what he wanted, because I don’t necessarily think there is an end result… *evolution* (in the generalised sense) could be the whole point.
Male nipples and such are simply part of our evolutionary development. Suggesting God did a poor job is not a valid argument, because nowhere in the bible does it suggest that we were supposed to be somehow perfect. On the contrary, I think our flaws and weaknesses are vital to our development as individuals — or more specifically, how we respond to them.
I would also add that I think it’s arrogant when people suggest that we are the only creatures in the universe of our intelligence. Perhaps the universe is entirely for us, but I don’t think that is an assumption we can make even taking the bible’s descriptions of us into consideration. The bible suggests that we are chosen and special, but it doesn’t say that we’re the only ones who are.
Another small issue: “Evolution is true.” I think you said that in the heat of the moment, but I hope you realise how anti-science that statement is as well. Believe it or not, the number of biologists who agree with the theory of evolution is somewhere in the range of 80-90%. Even if it were 99.9%, we still should never say that a scientific theory is “true”. Rather it is “probable”.
And on a side-topic, I actually do think kids should be studying the bible in classes other than Religious Studies, but not for the reason of including “both sides”. I think understanding the bible is vital to our understanding of so many things in the western world: history, literature, politics… they all are influenced by Christianity. How can you be expected to understand Christian texts in English, if you don’t understand Christianity? I imagine you probably don’t disagree with that, but I just wanted to put it out there.
Thanks for your comments, David. This is the first I’ll reply to.
It’s admirable that you have such an open-minded attitude about Christianity and science. I wish more Christians shared that view, but alas, many abhor science (and, it seems, any knowledge that extends beyond the Bible). Remember: though the Christians you’ve known in your life may be more open to science, keep the bias of personal experience in mind. There are many, many Christians worldwide who don’t think that way, especially in the United States.
The large timeframe of evolution is only a problem for Christians or other believers who think the Earth isn’t as old as we suspect it is. With a view such as the one you’re espousing, evolution’s timeline would not be a problem whatsoever. On a related note, you say that God is “an inherently unfathomable entity”. I want to address this further, but you bring it up more prominently in another comment, so I’ll touch on it there.
You say, “Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that we were supposed to be somehow perfect.” While this may be true, it doesn’t change two important facts: one, many Christians believe humans are God’s greatest creation, and have a very special place in the universe, and two, if God were in fact creating something totally wonderful, would He really give it as many unnecessary and poorly-designed bits as humans have? But these problems only arise for a Christian who doesn’t accept evolution, a category which clearly does not include yourself.
Studying the Bible as a cultural lesson is, I suppose, something I could agree with. But it’s a dangerous game in the United States. One would need to be very careful not to place bias in favor of Christianity into any of the lessons. In fact, I doubt very much any public school could teach the Bible as American culture without causing controversy; non-Christians would say it promoted Christianity, and Christians would say teachers were trying to ruin the faith of their kids by saying the Bible might only be stories. It’s a minefield for sure. Students might be better off just learning individual cultural references on an as-needed basis.
I do realize saying “evolution is true” is not, strictly speaking, true. It was, as you note, to make a point. I agree with you that it would be more accurate to say probable… but the final line “Evolution is probable. Creationism is improbable” just doesn’t have the same impact
Fair enough.
For completeness, I would like to point out that belief or non-belief in evolution is no indicator of the validity of a belief in God. The two are disconnected, except insofar as what it might say about the IQ of those concerned : p (Although I think belief is more heart and soul than it is intellect, so that’s not entirely relevant either.)
I believe in God because of my experiences, experiences which form personal evidence (though obviously unreproducible by theological necessity). If I’m absurd enough to make the claim that evolution can’t be compatible with my beliefs, then I might think that proving evolution ends my faith… but that would be a reflection of my own foolishness and not on God’s existence. So to use an argument about the refusal of many Christians to accept evolution says nothing of the faith at its core. Stupidity isn’t hard to find in general, but you don’t need to be intelligent to receive God’s love. (In fact, often I would say it gets in the way — the logos or the pathos often distract you from the other at inconvenient times.)
I don’t think that this is really what you’re trying to do, but I feel like it’s implied by the general tone and focus of your blog. So just something to think about.
You’re right. Evolution does not invalidate God… well, not your God, anyway. For some Bible literalists, evolution does eliminate their God, and that’s problematic for them (obviously). But you’re right on this point: just because the truth of evolution hurts the claims of some Christians does not mean Christianity as a whole is destroyed. It merely means one particularly evidence-wary sect of the group has got it all wrong, and that’s that.
However, does it not trouble you that you share a namesake with those who believe in such a literal manner? Does it not strike you as odd or even disconcerting that they, using the same holy book you do, came to such radically different conclusions? I suppose this is getting off-topic, so I won’t go to far, but I think it’s worth point out that at the end of the day, both you and the Bible literalists who decry evolution are praying to the same God and the same Jesus. The philosophical crimes of those fringe groups do not incriminate you, of course… but it’s hard to ignore the fact that there are a lot more of them than there are of you.
In my country there are far more of *us* than there are of *them*.
Literal-interpretation Christians are a small nutty fringe group in many parts of Europe… as it should be! I’d go on some spiel about the American education system, but you don’t want to hear that. 
I wouldn’t say it disturbs me exactly, because as long as they accept Jesus’ sacrifice and have some kind of relationship with God, at least they’re doing the fundamentals right. And in that relationship with God, there’s always the opportunity for their views to be turned on their heads.
It does frustrate me immensely. Similar to how it frustrates me that my fellow Christians prop up the Republican party here. Sometimes it angers me, which is sinful, but hopefully understandable because as a physicist I’m always going to get frustrated with poor thinking. Maybe if science education improves… but again I’m heading down the road of a rant so I’ll stop.
I struggled with the idea of the many interpretations of the Bible, especially those literal interpretations which did not resonate with me. However, I do believe that there are not as many of the hard core literatlists as one would believe. They are just more vocal. Christianity isn’t even the major religion of the world. These literalists have, in a sense, hijacked the debate in this area of inquiry. A duality has been created so that every time someone pushes back against the literalists, it serves only reinforce and entrench their position, thereby giving it even more definition. I know what I know and I do not allow their form of religious expression define mine. If I allow it to bother me, I am allowing them to define my quality of religious expression.
I think you make an excellent point, and I’ve only two things to add: first, Christianity actually is the largest religion in the world, and second, I totally agree that literalists are the most vocal and the most likely to feel that any attention validates their position. I wish our national media didn’t give them so much time in the spotlight.
I always thought Islam was larger the Christianity, but I see that Islam is the second largest. Thanks for the correction!