A General Statement of Belief
Nov. 23rd, 2006 11:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pyatI think arguing against evolution in the name of God is akin to arguing against meteorology.
Assuming that God makes weather (or at least guides the systems that create the conditions we regard as weather) why is it that no one decries meteorologists for describing or attempting to predict the way those systems work? After all, meteorology is an imperfect science with a great many inaccuracies, proof of man's arrogance in trying to determine the mind of God.
(Of course, there is scriptural support for meteorology in Matthew 16:1-3, so, okay, maybe that's a bad example.)
Anyway, my point is that evolution does not deny the existence of God, a god, many gods, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor does it provide any particular explanation for the creation of the universe. It's a description of a process - you can accept God as the motivator of that process without denying his existence.
I understand why Biblical literalists and Young Earth people argue against evolution. I don't agree with the foundation of their arguments, but I understand that they must argue against evolution as a "logical" result of their belief. What baffles me are those who deny "macroevolution" (the creation of new species) while happily accepting adaptation or "microevolution." They regard their position as enlightened - and there are certainly a few scientists who take issue with macroevolution and who level serious scientific criticisms against it. However, the average person with this view often has totally outrageous ideas about what evolution actually entails. You get nonsense like Kirk Cameron and the Banana, or worse.
(At his site, Kirk Cameron claims that "bypassing the intellect" is the only way to convert people. Then his next video uses logical arguments to convince people that evolution is false. The arguments are false and based on crap, but they are definitely not trying to "bypass" the intellect of their victims. Kirk Cameron needs to be beaten up by a tag-team of Jesuits and 18th century logicians, or something. Go on - watch the video about evolution. They ambush college kids and present them with straw men arguments and misleading logic. One person is asked to point to a transitional species, and can't. And, since a 20-year-old kid can't name a transitional species, they must not exist! Hello? Archaeopteryx? They present anti-evolution quotes from such scientific luminaries as Malcolm Muggeridge. Malcolm Muggeridge. The satirist/journalist. It's like trying to debunk quantum mechanics by quoting Andy Rooney. The whole video is laughable and frightening.)
Finally, there's simply a class of Christian (or Hindu, or Muslim, or what-have-you) that seems to think that there are mysteries we aren't meant to know. They react to theories and ideas as though they were somehow unseating or diminishing God. This has been happening for a long time.
The question you have to ask yourself is this - "What kind of crummy God/god/godess/gods do you worship, that our discoveries about divine creation can somehow threaten or diminish Him/Her/It/Them?"
Biblical literalism is a thin defense, especially if you happen to be Protestant. Martin Luther stripped out entire books because he disagreed with them. You may argue that he was divinely inspired to do so, but then you must accept that God allowed Christians to use a false text as their sole guide for 1500 years. You have to assume that the original synods and councils that selected the books for inclusion in the Bible were not divinely inspired - and in fact diabolically misled.
Or, you can be Catholic (or Orthodox) and believe that Luther was fooled by the devil! No matter what sect or denomination a Christian hails from, they must believe that one version of the Bible is divinely inspired, and the other an abomination. Alternately, they can accept that both Luther and the bishops were simply acting according to their human interpretation of the Divine Will and came to different conclusions, presumably because the Divine permitted it. This somewhat takes the shine off Biblical literalism.
One of my favorite quotes about this whole matter comes from Charles McKay's 1841 book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
"Some peculiar custom may disgrace the people amongst whom it flourishes; yet men of a little wisdom refuse to aid in its extirpation, merely because it is old. Thus it is with human belief, and thus it is we bring shame upon our own intellect.
To this cause may be added another, also mentioned by Lord Bacon -- a misdirected zeal in matters of religion, which induces so many to decry a newly-discovered truth, because the Divine records contain no allusion to it, or because, at first sight, it appears to militate, not against religion, but against some obscure passage which has never been fairly interpreted...
... Who does not remember the outcry against the science of geology, which has hardly yet subsided? Its professors were impiously and absurdly accused of designing to 'hurl the Creator from his throne.' They were charged with sapping the foundations of religion, and of propping atheism by the aid of a pretended science.
The very same principle which leads to the rejection of the true, leads to the encouragement of the false."
And that's what I think.
Assuming that God makes weather (or at least guides the systems that create the conditions we regard as weather) why is it that no one decries meteorologists for describing or attempting to predict the way those systems work? After all, meteorology is an imperfect science with a great many inaccuracies, proof of man's arrogance in trying to determine the mind of God.
(Of course, there is scriptural support for meteorology in Matthew 16:1-3, so, okay, maybe that's a bad example.)
Anyway, my point is that evolution does not deny the existence of God, a god, many gods, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor does it provide any particular explanation for the creation of the universe. It's a description of a process - you can accept God as the motivator of that process without denying his existence.
I understand why Biblical literalists and Young Earth people argue against evolution. I don't agree with the foundation of their arguments, but I understand that they must argue against evolution as a "logical" result of their belief. What baffles me are those who deny "macroevolution" (the creation of new species) while happily accepting adaptation or "microevolution." They regard their position as enlightened - and there are certainly a few scientists who take issue with macroevolution and who level serious scientific criticisms against it. However, the average person with this view often has totally outrageous ideas about what evolution actually entails. You get nonsense like Kirk Cameron and the Banana, or worse.
(At his site, Kirk Cameron claims that "bypassing the intellect" is the only way to convert people. Then his next video uses logical arguments to convince people that evolution is false. The arguments are false and based on crap, but they are definitely not trying to "bypass" the intellect of their victims. Kirk Cameron needs to be beaten up by a tag-team of Jesuits and 18th century logicians, or something. Go on - watch the video about evolution. They ambush college kids and present them with straw men arguments and misleading logic. One person is asked to point to a transitional species, and can't. And, since a 20-year-old kid can't name a transitional species, they must not exist! Hello? Archaeopteryx? They present anti-evolution quotes from such scientific luminaries as Malcolm Muggeridge. Malcolm Muggeridge. The satirist/journalist. It's like trying to debunk quantum mechanics by quoting Andy Rooney. The whole video is laughable and frightening.)
Finally, there's simply a class of Christian (or Hindu, or Muslim, or what-have-you) that seems to think that there are mysteries we aren't meant to know. They react to theories and ideas as though they were somehow unseating or diminishing God. This has been happening for a long time.
The question you have to ask yourself is this - "What kind of crummy God/god/godess/gods do you worship, that our discoveries about divine creation can somehow threaten or diminish Him/Her/It/Them?"
Biblical literalism is a thin defense, especially if you happen to be Protestant. Martin Luther stripped out entire books because he disagreed with them. You may argue that he was divinely inspired to do so, but then you must accept that God allowed Christians to use a false text as their sole guide for 1500 years. You have to assume that the original synods and councils that selected the books for inclusion in the Bible were not divinely inspired - and in fact diabolically misled.
Or, you can be Catholic (or Orthodox) and believe that Luther was fooled by the devil! No matter what sect or denomination a Christian hails from, they must believe that one version of the Bible is divinely inspired, and the other an abomination. Alternately, they can accept that both Luther and the bishops were simply acting according to their human interpretation of the Divine Will and came to different conclusions, presumably because the Divine permitted it. This somewhat takes the shine off Biblical literalism.
One of my favorite quotes about this whole matter comes from Charles McKay's 1841 book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
"Some peculiar custom may disgrace the people amongst whom it flourishes; yet men of a little wisdom refuse to aid in its extirpation, merely because it is old. Thus it is with human belief, and thus it is we bring shame upon our own intellect.
To this cause may be added another, also mentioned by Lord Bacon -- a misdirected zeal in matters of religion, which induces so many to decry a newly-discovered truth, because the Divine records contain no allusion to it, or because, at first sight, it appears to militate, not against religion, but against some obscure passage which has never been fairly interpreted...
... Who does not remember the outcry against the science of geology, which has hardly yet subsided? Its professors were impiously and absurdly accused of designing to 'hurl the Creator from his throne.' They were charged with sapping the foundations of religion, and of propping atheism by the aid of a pretended science.
The very same principle which leads to the rejection of the true, leads to the encouragement of the false."
And that's what I think.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
My Take
Date: 2006-11-23 04:47 pm (UTC)Not everyone who believes that humans aren't the product of evolution is like this, however. Some people don't believe in many of the principles of evolution that can't be directly shown, but they don't try to "prove" their points with false science, either. This is more palatable to me, and I have some faiths in this realm, myself. However, it's a riskier stance, because science could one day prove those fanciful beliefs wrong more conclusively than it is currently able to. You can go ahead and believe that the mascons under the moon are made of chocolate pudding if you like, but be prepared for future evidence to add more weight against that belief.
Some domains will always be outside the bounds of scientific inquiry, because their propositions are inherently unfalsifiable; the existence of a deity of any sort, the purpose of living, and quite possibly elements of consciousness and the mind, all will be forever inscrutable. When scientists try to disprove these beliefs (Hawking is guilty of this) they become equally as childish and illogical as so-called "creationist science" is.
So from whence does this problem originate? Western religion is schizophrenic, Joseph Campbell suggests. On one hand, we are expected to form a personal relationship with god. On the other, we are expected to follow an impersonal set of rules. The conflict created by these two seemingly incompatible foundations of faith has fueled countless wars, fascinating artistic expressions, and amazing scientific discoveries. But at the end of the day, the problem remains: those of an authoritarian bent cannot follow religion unless the rules are absolute and unchanging, even though this is not the case in any religion; they must therefore cling to the folly that the mythology inherent in this tradition is real. I think it's a weak sort of faith to be so dependent upon falsehood, but we live in a culture--much like the more fundamentalist Islamic states--that supports it whole-hog.
The fascinating thing? Nobody really believes stories like Noah's Ark, other than children...those who claim to believe such stories, deep down in the back of their minds, know them to be false. They pretend to believe because they are desparate to. They seek anything which can provide them with proof because they NEED proof to fix their lack of faith.
Trickster
Re: My Take
Date: 2006-11-23 09:58 pm (UTC)Those propositions are my favourite.
The fascinating thing? Nobody really believes stories like Noah's Ark, other than children...those who claim to believe such stories, deep down in the back of their minds, know them to be false.
I think the only people who know any given myth to be false are the people actually engaged in the disproving. Geographical layer dating (to fix on one of many logical problems with the story and ignore others) is as much a myth to me as the Ark story itself, because I have no experience with it myself, only what other people say. I certainly haven't been on a personal expedition to see for myself that layers of dirt across the globe are never at any given depth consistent the world over. For me, geography is as much "what other people say is true" as any ludicrously illogical myth. I'm not saying science is wrong. That's stupid. I'm just saying I'm not a geographer.
Now any given person could come up to me and present evidence that they insist is true, but unless they give me a good reason to care and discover the truth for myself, I'll take the good I can out of what they and anyone else has to say regarding things that are entirely out of the realm of my experience and get on with the other completely separate things that interest me a lot more than geography.
Of course, it's difficult to be individualist relying on empiricism and argue anything to be truth.
Re: My Take
Date: 2006-11-24 03:11 am (UTC)I disagree completely. I think the most ardent supporters of an idea are often engaged in zealous discourse precisely because they need to convince themselves of its rectitude.
Likewise, the loudest mouthes trying to disprove a myth are the ones who worry that it might be true.
And as a final quibble, you can't "disprove" a myth. :)
Geographical layer dating (to fix on one of many logical problems with the story and ignore others) is as much a myth to me as the Ark story itself, because I have no experience with it myself, only what other people say.
I don't think making a rational judgment is merely about selecting which authority or process to side with. There's a scale of believability; some leaps of faith are more profound than others. Saying that man was sculpted from mud and woman from a rib is MUCH more of a stretch based on observable evidence than to say man evolved from animal ancestors, and any attempt to find observable evidence that agrees with a belief that isn't supported by what we see in nature is a more heavily biased attempt. People who do this make their faith look weak and arbitrary.
Also, evolution doesn't rest on the geological scale; it is a composition of hundreds of separate lines of evidence. People don't chiefly usu the geological scale because they are desparate to believe that some dusty old stories are true.
(Note that nowhere here am I saying that man actually wasn't sculpted from mud!)
Trickster
Re: My Take
Date: 2006-11-24 06:46 am (UTC)I don't mean to defend ignorance, although I guess it seems like that's what I'm doing.
I don't believe Noah's story as it's recounted in the sense of "oh, it must have been true," but I believe that someone had a reason to tell it and I have to figure out if I can get anything out of it for myself.
My take is that at some point physical history falls out of human knowledge and into the realm of possibilities. Yes, there's a certain sense in which observable evidence makes something seem more likely, but until we can observe much more clearly, especially regarding the distant past, I'm hesitant to say anything outside the observable is actually beyond the realm of possibility.
I just don't like the idea that I'm not allowed to believe that, sometime long before anyone can possibly go back and check the source, a guy repopulated the planet with a giant boat full of animals (maybe it was a tiny boat and there were only six animals on it and evolution takes care of the rest, har) that should have died after a global flood, simply because it could not possibly happen here and now.
Re: My Take
Date: 2006-11-24 11:21 pm (UTC)In other words, those who truly believe don't need empirical proof. That's all I'm saying. There are people who believe in Noah's Ark that don't try to find it on Google Maps.
As for non-literal interpretations of mythology, those don't conflict with science at all.
Trickster
Re: My Take
Date: 2006-11-28 03:17 am (UTC)