In last week’s comment, I noted the passage of the two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the struggle to reconcile evolution with religious beliefs and the idea that humans are “special.” Because that question is so central to our understanding of the world, I return to it today. How do we resolve this problem? To get started, consider widely accepted facts about the origins and development of life.
The Big Bang occurred around 14 billion years ago, and earth was formed about ten billion years later. After another billion years or so, very primitive forms of life developed on earth and evolved into the vast array of plants and animals we see around us, including ourselves. Our earliest ancestors in the genus “homo,” homo habilis, probably developed around 2.4 million years ago, followed by homo erectus, which appeared about 1.8 million years ago. Our species, homo sapiens, has existed for perhaps 250,000 years. Two other members of the genus homo, Neanderthals and homo floresiensis, were probably branches off the evolutionary chain that led to homo sapiens. Homo erectus survived until around 70,000 years ago, and Neanderthals may have lived as recently as 30,000 years ago, before they became extinct. Homo floresiensis, may have developed after homo sapiens and become extinct as recently as twelve thousand years ago. In other words, the story of human evolution is one of development and extinction. Our vulnerability to disease, violence and climate change make it quite possible that some day we will also be extinct.
To their credit, The Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations have made a serious effort to find an accommodation between evolution and religion. Are they on the right track? The position of the Catholic Church appears to be that God controlled the process of evolution to create a special species, homo sapiens. The problem with that approach is the overwhelming scientific evidence that development of all species, including our own, has been driven by random mutation and natural selection. The process that led to homo sapiens is the same one that led to dinosaurs, birds, and earthworms.
The Church of England, on the other hand, appears to have accepted the full, unvarnished implications of evolution. It has devoted a section of its website to Darwin. An essay on the website explains its position:[1] "[While] it is not difficult to see why evolutionary thinking was offensive at the time, on reflection it is not such an earth-shattering idea. Yes, Christians believe that God became incarnate as a human being in the person of Jesus and thereby demonstrated God’s especial love for humanity. But how can that special relationship be undermined just because we develop a different understanding of the processes by which humanity came to be?"
Although that excerpt is somewhat ambiguous, I believe the author means that God had nothing to do with the process of evolution and, by implication, the creation of any living species. However, once God noticed that an intelligent species had evolved on earth, perhaps the only place that development occurred in the universe, he concluded that this species is special. He then decided to reveal himself to these creatures, get involved in their lives, and love them.
The Church of England should be commended for accepting the scientific evidence about how evolution has actually occurred. However, the Church’s account paints a strange picture of God as a supreme being who sits on the sidelines of the universe until natural selection happens to result in an intelligent species that warrants his involvement, at least after humans have been around for 250,000 years or so. He then decides to reveal himself as Jesus in order to show how much he cares for these beings. That conception of God is neither intellectually convincing nor emotionally satisfying.
Despite its sincere efforts, the approach of the Church of England will not help us to come to terms with development of human beings. We are not special because a divine mind made us the ultimate result of an evolutionary process, nor are we special because a supreme being noticed that we are an intelligent species worthy of his love. As I explain in The Uncertain Believer, we are special because we are the only species, on earth at least, with the capacity to understand our place in the universe. We are special because we have the ability to develop a conception of God that makes sense in the twenty-first century.
[1] Good Religion Needs Good Science,” by Rev Dr. Malcolm Brown, the Director of Mission and Public Affairs.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Reconciling God and Evolution
Last Thursday was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. The occasion prompted much commentary about the conflict between religion and evolution. As in the case of many scientific discoveries through history, much of organized religion resisted Darwin’s insights about natural seletion. Some conservative denominations still do.
One reaction to a clash between science and religious doctrines is to rethink the doctrines. However, the general response of organized religion has been to resist the findings of science until the facts become so overwhelming that religion has to give way. That process is underway now for evolution and will be underway some day for our understanding of creation itself.
In general, there are three broad approaches to reconciling God and evolution. One way is to reject the Darwinian conception of evolution altogether. For example, religious conservatives who endorse Intelligent Design deny that species develop through random mutation and natural selection. Instead, they argue that all species (and everything else in nature) are elements of a complex plan put into effect by a divine creator. That approach provides a beautiful and inspiring explanation of a complex organ such as the eye, but it has the weakness that it is radically inconsistent with the scientific evidence. The history of life on earth is a story of imperfect biological structures, millions of extinct species, and incremental development over billions of years. Real living things fall far short of an idealized Intelligent Design.
A second approach is to accept the basic elements of evolution but to argue that God put evolution in motion and somehow “controls” it. This preserves the conception of a divine creator God but it requires considerable intellectual gymnastics to reconcile the actual results of evolution with the benevolent control by God. Why would a loving God allow evolution to result in painful and debilitating genetic defects, a human body that allows cancer to destroy innocent children, and species, including our own, that are vulnerable to extinction? The problem with both approaches is that they are premised on the conception of God that we inherited from our pre-scientific ancestors. In other words, the challenge is not the conflict between God and evolution. It is how we think of God.
The third approach, and the one that makes the most sense, is to say that God has nothing to do with evolution. That is because God is not the anthropomorphic being that the authors of the Old Testament imagined. We should stop worrying about reconciling evolution with the notion that God created man in his own image. The truth is the reverse. Our pre-scientific ancestors created God in man’s image, whether they were the ancient Jews, the inventors of the Greek and Roman Gods, or the early Hindus who conceived of Vishnu and Krishna. In The Uncertain Believer, I explain that the essential characteristic of God is not the raw power to control nature and defeat enemies, the quality admired by our ancestors. The essential quality of God is the power to inspire us to be as perfect as can be. That leads to a very different view of God and one that is perfectly compatible with evolution and, indeed, with all of science.
One reaction to a clash between science and religious doctrines is to rethink the doctrines. However, the general response of organized religion has been to resist the findings of science until the facts become so overwhelming that religion has to give way. That process is underway now for evolution and will be underway some day for our understanding of creation itself.
In general, there are three broad approaches to reconciling God and evolution. One way is to reject the Darwinian conception of evolution altogether. For example, religious conservatives who endorse Intelligent Design deny that species develop through random mutation and natural selection. Instead, they argue that all species (and everything else in nature) are elements of a complex plan put into effect by a divine creator. That approach provides a beautiful and inspiring explanation of a complex organ such as the eye, but it has the weakness that it is radically inconsistent with the scientific evidence. The history of life on earth is a story of imperfect biological structures, millions of extinct species, and incremental development over billions of years. Real living things fall far short of an idealized Intelligent Design.
A second approach is to accept the basic elements of evolution but to argue that God put evolution in motion and somehow “controls” it. This preserves the conception of a divine creator God but it requires considerable intellectual gymnastics to reconcile the actual results of evolution with the benevolent control by God. Why would a loving God allow evolution to result in painful and debilitating genetic defects, a human body that allows cancer to destroy innocent children, and species, including our own, that are vulnerable to extinction? The problem with both approaches is that they are premised on the conception of God that we inherited from our pre-scientific ancestors. In other words, the challenge is not the conflict between God and evolution. It is how we think of God.
The third approach, and the one that makes the most sense, is to say that God has nothing to do with evolution. That is because God is not the anthropomorphic being that the authors of the Old Testament imagined. We should stop worrying about reconciling evolution with the notion that God created man in his own image. The truth is the reverse. Our pre-scientific ancestors created God in man’s image, whether they were the ancient Jews, the inventors of the Greek and Roman Gods, or the early Hindus who conceived of Vishnu and Krishna. In The Uncertain Believer, I explain that the essential characteristic of God is not the raw power to control nature and defeat enemies, the quality admired by our ancestors. The essential quality of God is the power to inspire us to be as perfect as can be. That leads to a very different view of God and one that is perfectly compatible with evolution and, indeed, with all of science.
Monday, February 9, 2009
An (almost) Useless Debate about God on British Buses
The Washington Post reported last Friday that thousands of people in Christian groups in Britain raised money to place ads in buses to combat an advertising campaign by atheists. In theory, this kind of dialogue could be quite useful. One side might provide an intellectually provocative argument, and the other side would respond with something equally compelling. The rest of us on the sidelines (or sitting on the bus) could benefit from the exchange. Sadly, that is not the case.
Here is the type of exchanges that appear in the ads: The atheists' ads said: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The Christian groups’ response was: “There definitely is a God.” Another: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Do you get much out of that exchange?
The unstated premise in this back and forth is that the conception of God each side has in mind is the God we learned about as children in Sunday School. If the only possible meaning of the term “God” is something like the God described in the Old Testament, an anthropomorphic being who created the universe and intervenes in the world, then we are stuck in a bipolar world between atheists and traditional believers. In fact, as I explain in The Uncertain Believer, there are many ways to conceive of God. Some of the greatest thinkers in history from Aristotle to modern theologians have held conceptions of God that are very different from the one described in the Bible. It makes no sense to accept without question the conception advanced by our pre-scientific ancestors. With all due respect to the authors of the Old Testament, we have learned a lot since then.
The most important question for modern humans is how to think of God, once we see that we are free to rethink the conception of God we inherited from those who have gone before us. The arguments about these possibilities are provocative, even exciting. Now that would be a useful debate.
Here is the type of exchanges that appear in the ads: The atheists' ads said: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The Christian groups’ response was: “There definitely is a God.” Another: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Do you get much out of that exchange?
The unstated premise in this back and forth is that the conception of God each side has in mind is the God we learned about as children in Sunday School. If the only possible meaning of the term “God” is something like the God described in the Old Testament, an anthropomorphic being who created the universe and intervenes in the world, then we are stuck in a bipolar world between atheists and traditional believers. In fact, as I explain in The Uncertain Believer, there are many ways to conceive of God. Some of the greatest thinkers in history from Aristotle to modern theologians have held conceptions of God that are very different from the one described in the Bible. It makes no sense to accept without question the conception advanced by our pre-scientific ancestors. With all due respect to the authors of the Old Testament, we have learned a lot since then.
The most important question for modern humans is how to think of God, once we see that we are free to rethink the conception of God we inherited from those who have gone before us. The arguments about these possibilities are provocative, even exciting. Now that would be a useful debate.
Monday, February 2, 2009
How Can We Heal Religious Divisions?
As we begin 2009, our world is not a peaceful place. There is a tenuous ceasefire in Gaza, which could fall apart at any time. India and Pakistan have heightened alerts on their border, and there is continued violence in Afghanistan. Mercifully, Iraq seems less violent but a suicide bomber killed dozens only a few weeks ago. There are simmering conflicts in Africa, from Darfur in the north to Somalia in the east.
All of these conflicts represent struggles for political power. Yet, there is also a religious element. India is an overwhelmingly Hindu country; Pakistan is overwhelmingly Muslim. Israel is a Jewish country; the residents of Gaza are mostly Muslim. Iraq is torn by a struggle between two groups of Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites. Religious differences exacerbate political differences because they provide a basis for one group to see a rival group as fundamentally inferior. Consider this recent quote from an Egyptian cleric railing at Jews in protesting Israel’s invasion of Gaza: “Muslim brothers, God has inflicted the Muslim nation with a people whom God has become angry at and whom he cursed so he made monkeys and pigs out of them. They killed prophets and messengers and sowed corruption on Earth. They are the most evil on Earth.”
In the last chapter of The Uncertain Believer I imagine a world in which humanity shares a common conception of God. I am not so naïve as to think that will happen soon, certainly not in my lifetime. However, it is not pure fantasy to think that future generations might come to bridge their religious differences. We would continue to have profound differences over many things, but at least one group would not claim that God is on its side.
To begin to close the religious fault lines that divide us, we have to see history in a different way. In particular, we need to stop thinking of our ancestors as having arrived at the truth about the nature of the world. Doing so traps us into replaying ancient conflicts that were often based on superstition and irrational biases. Our ancestors tried to understand the world as well as they could based on the knowledge they had, and there is much wisdom we can draw from ancient sources, including the Bible, the Qur'an, classic Greek plays, and so on. But looking to ancient texts to explain the fundamental nature of the universe is equivalent to relying on scientific textbooks that are a thousand years out of date. Even Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist in history, had only a limited ability to understand the nature of matter. He knew nothing of subatomic particles or black holes. He could not conceive of how the universe could be the way it is without a divine, all-powerful creator who set the universe in motion.
It is possible to start now to overcome the religious conflicts that divide us. One of the essential requirements is to think for ourselves about the nature of God and the universe, rather than to accept without question the beliefs of our ancient ancestors. I have no illusions that the world will stop fighting wars that are at least partly religious any time soon. But there is value is thinking about what such a day might be like.
All of these conflicts represent struggles for political power. Yet, there is also a religious element. India is an overwhelmingly Hindu country; Pakistan is overwhelmingly Muslim. Israel is a Jewish country; the residents of Gaza are mostly Muslim. Iraq is torn by a struggle between two groups of Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites. Religious differences exacerbate political differences because they provide a basis for one group to see a rival group as fundamentally inferior. Consider this recent quote from an Egyptian cleric railing at Jews in protesting Israel’s invasion of Gaza: “Muslim brothers, God has inflicted the Muslim nation with a people whom God has become angry at and whom he cursed so he made monkeys and pigs out of them. They killed prophets and messengers and sowed corruption on Earth. They are the most evil on Earth.”
In the last chapter of The Uncertain Believer I imagine a world in which humanity shares a common conception of God. I am not so naïve as to think that will happen soon, certainly not in my lifetime. However, it is not pure fantasy to think that future generations might come to bridge their religious differences. We would continue to have profound differences over many things, but at least one group would not claim that God is on its side.
To begin to close the religious fault lines that divide us, we have to see history in a different way. In particular, we need to stop thinking of our ancestors as having arrived at the truth about the nature of the world. Doing so traps us into replaying ancient conflicts that were often based on superstition and irrational biases. Our ancestors tried to understand the world as well as they could based on the knowledge they had, and there is much wisdom we can draw from ancient sources, including the Bible, the Qur'an, classic Greek plays, and so on. But looking to ancient texts to explain the fundamental nature of the universe is equivalent to relying on scientific textbooks that are a thousand years out of date. Even Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist in history, had only a limited ability to understand the nature of matter. He knew nothing of subatomic particles or black holes. He could not conceive of how the universe could be the way it is without a divine, all-powerful creator who set the universe in motion.
It is possible to start now to overcome the religious conflicts that divide us. One of the essential requirements is to think for ourselves about the nature of God and the universe, rather than to accept without question the beliefs of our ancient ancestors. I have no illusions that the world will stop fighting wars that are at least partly religious any time soon. But there is value is thinking about what such a day might be like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
