by behemot 20 Replies latest jw friends
The Wall Street Journal recently commissioned Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to independently respond to the question "Where does evolution leave God?". Their thoughts are here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html
Very interesting :)
Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped—even primitive. In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart.
...
St Augustine (354-430), a major authority for both Catholics and Protestants, insisted that if a biblical text contradicted reputable science, it must be interpreted allegorically. This remained standard practice in the West until the 17th century, when in an effort to emulate the exact scientific method, Christians began to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history.
I would really like love to hear som perspective on these ideas from theists on this site. Have anyone read her book, "The case for God"?
Interesting quote from Karen Armstrong
"But what of the pain and waste that Darwin unveiled? All the major traditions insist that the faithful meditate on the ubiquitous suffering that is an inescapable part of life; because, if we do not acknowledge this uncomfortable fact, the compassion that lies at the heart of faith is impossible. The almost unbearable spectacle of the myriad species passing painfully into oblivion is not unlike some classic Buddhist meditations on the First Noble Truth ("Existence is suffering"), the indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment that some call Nirvana—and others call God."
I think evil, pain and suffering are the most underdeveloped parts of Christian theology.
I would really like love to hear som perspective on these ideas from theists on this site.
I agree with the quote, Bohm. This is my thought of the matter also.
BTS
God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.
could be the noo lite
In the ancient world, a cosmology was not regarded as factual but was primarily therapeutic; it was recited when people needed an infusion of that mysterious power that had—somehow—brought something out of primal nothingness: at a sickbed, a coronation or during a political crisis. Some cosmologies taught people how to unlock their own creativity, others made them aware of the struggle required to maintain social and political order. The Genesis creation hymn, written during the Israelites' exile in Babylonia in the 6th century BC, was a gentle polemic against Babylonian religion. Its vision of an ordered universe where everything had its place was probably consoling to a displaced people, though—as we can see in the Bible—some of the exiles preferred a more aggressive cosmology.
Interesting. So Karen actually says that we need it because it is comforting or helpful. But I also think that people needed a creation myth because of their limited knowledge. If myth replaces knowledge however artful the results of creativity based on that myth .... it is still myth ... not true. I wonder if it is not really a matter of allowing people a perception. Like the famous Guernica painting of Salvador Dali. no one would argue it is a truthful representation. The way it is created is ... is ugly, eggregious, hateful, appaling and yet .... beautifull in it's own right. But Guernica is no myth.
So where does a rational description of the Spanish civilwar leaves a painting as Guernica?
Lord of the ring is a phantasy story. The book and the movie are entertaining and really capable of snatching you out of this realm into a world of elfs, aardvarks, hobbits, dwarfs and a total war on unprecedented scale of good against evil, strong against frail, big against small, etc.
Where leaves a ratioanal approach to life this Tolkin phantasy?
Cheers
Borgia
As far as I know evolution has nothing to say about God's existence.
So Karen actually says that we need it because it is comforting or helpful.
This sounds very similar to a doctor prescribing a placebo drug to a patient. If the placedo works, then it's a "real" drug -- for that patient.
Only when/if the placebo/religion/fantasy/drug quits "helping" the patient, is the patient likely to look for alternatives, it would seem.
Where does evolution leave God?
Unemployed?
[inkling]
