Posted by Mike Clawson in It’s rare that you find a newspaper article that actually addresses theology in depth, so I was surprised to see the Chicago Tribune Magazine article this past Sunday on “The New Theology” regarding theistic evolution. The article highlights several Christian scientists, physicist Howard Van Till and geneticist Francis Collins among them, who have reconciled their Christian faith with evolutionary theory by adjusting their view of God.
“If your faith requires supernaturalism, or a God who wields overpowering control over nature, then yes, evolution will challenge that,” says Van Till, who took early retirement from Calvin College in 1999.”The key is to correct your portrait of God,” he says.
It’s an audacious suggestion, but transforming the way people think about God has become a vital mission for a wave of scientists and theologians who want to place the natural world at the forefront of religion. They see themselves as spokespersons for an emerging religious majority that has been obscured by the excesses of stubborn creationists and the iconoclastic broadsides of scientific atheists.
Evolution, they contend, is more than a soulless explanation for the development of life. It is a glimpse of a divine plan so subtle it’s almost invisible.
The article correctly notes that such a view will ironically bring scorn both from Creationists and from scientific atheists like Richard Dawkins, whom the article also highlights.
In a curious way, Dawkins and his fellow scientific atheists espouse the same notion of God that drives their sworn enemies, the creationists who oppose teaching evolution in public schools. For both camps, the only God who makes sense is one who designed all life with exquisite attention to detail. Scientific atheists disavow such a religion; creationists embrace it.
But what if both sides started out with the wrong idea of God? What if their pitched battles were the fruit of a shared misconception, one that conceals evolution’s potential for new religious insights? The greatest challenge may be for believers to understand evolution as it is, not as they wish it would be. Indeed, many scientists and even theologians believe that Darwin’s theory requires throwing out old ideas about divine design.
Theologian John Haught from Georgetown University, author of God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, goes on to describe this new view:
Don’t think of God as a meticulous designer of life, Haught urges. A detailed design would have limited the paths that living things could take. Instead, he says, God’s love led to a world that’s always open to new directions for life, without the need for overpowering divine supervision. The chance-fueled nature of evolution doesn’t disprove God’s existence, Haught believes. It’s what God wanted.
“Love persuades, it doesn’t force,” Haught says. “God doesn’t compel the world to be a certain way, and that’s because of how love works. God lets things be, and lets the weeds grow up with the wheat.”
The Biblical foundation for Haught’s view of evolution goes back to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, which describes how Jesus “emptied himself” to become human. It’s a crucial image, Haught believes. That idea of divine emptying–”kenosis” in Greek–offers a way of understanding all of creation. Instead of a mighty autocrat, it portrays God as a self-humbling servant, content to let the universe evolve and novelty emerge.
…
An evolutionary view of religion means the same forces that made life change constantly in the past are still at work, leaving our future uncertain. Haught believes such an open future is perfectly compatible with the messages of hope and promise that are central to Christianity.
Personally, as a theistic evolutionist myself, I find Haught’s ideas very compelling, and actually very resonant with what I consider to be a biblical view of God (if not so consistent with certain aspects of classical theology, which I would argue is too heavily influenced by Greek notions of divine omnipotence and immutability.) In fact, several years back, emerging church leader Brian McLaren wrote a book entitled The Story We Find Ourselves In, which details how evolution complements the scriptural story found in Genesis and throughout the Bible. In other words, one isn’t required to do complicated theological gymnastics with the biblical text to see how evolution can fit with a Christian conception of God.
Of course, the article does make a point to highlight those who would disagree with me and other theistic evolutionists on that point, including an Amish woodworker (I’m not kidding), Intelligent Design advocates like William Dembski, and of course, Dawkins too.
[Dawkins] gives a pass to big thinkers like Albert Einstein, who famously insisted that “God does not play dice with the universe,” and Stephen Hawking, who pondered the ability of physicists to “know the mind of God.” They were talking about an impersonal God embodied in the intangible laws of physics, Dawkins believes. What he can’t accept is an “interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering” God–the God that Dawkins believes is central to most religions.
Not that theistic evolutionists have no answer to the question of divine intervention:
Kenneth Miller of Brown has suggested that God might nudge events in the natural world through imperceptible changes at the quantum level. Other believers, like Francis Collins, say that old-fashioned miracles are perfectly consistent with a scientific worldview because science is concerned only with natural processes, not God’s supernatural action. Collins says his standard of evidence for believing in a miracle is high, but he doesn’t dismiss them out of hand.
“For me, as a believer who sees God as the author of natural laws, why would it be such a stretch to imagine that such a being could, on rare occasions, suspend those laws?” Collins says.
At any rate, the article makes pains to point out that the point of all this has nothing to do with “proving” (or disproving) God’s existence through science. Theistic evolutionists’ goals are more modest.
Collins says he hopes to correct the defensive crouch that many churches have taken against modern science, as if fearing that each new finding had the potential to challenge old beliefs.
“My dream is to bring together open-minded, deep-thinking scientists and theologians to try to construct a new theology of how the universe is put together and how God works within that universe,” Collins says. “It should be a celebration theology instead of a defensive theology.”
Just speaking personally, I think that’s a good goal. My only issue with the article was the way it painted theistic evolution as something new, as if Christians were just now discovering how to reconcile their faith with scientific discoveries. In truth, theistic evolution has been around as long as the theory of evolution itself. The only thing new here is that these sorts of views, which moderate and progressive religious believers have long embraced, are finally getting more attention from the mainstream media, and more people are realizing that the popular narrative of irreconcilable conflict between faith and science, perpetuated by people on both the Ken Ham and the Richard Dawkins ends of the spectrum, isn’t the only option out there.
Bishop Spong does the same thing with his views and even talks about post-Dawinism and alike. He of course goes a little farther than the Emerging Church and is a lot more humanistic in his views. I may not agree with everything he says about God and the Bible, but I can see it as being useful in this day and age with Evolution and all.
Since God is a human concept, as Spong states, it would make a lot more sense to adjust one’s view of God than to adjust science to one’s concept of a deity. However, I think it takes someone who is willing to adapt to the knowledge we have gained via science concerning our world.
No supernaturalism = metaphysical naturalism which includes atheism. WTF?
What is this incredible attachment to the word ‘God’? Should we re-phrase the germ theory of disease as a theory about humours and demons to adapt our portrait there too?
It makes no sense to me.
The invisible and the non-existent often look very much alike.
Reading the whole story…so far, it keeps talking about essentially letting go of the traditional conception of God (yay!) and substituting this new version that is very, very different:
…
Then the new concept should probably be given a new name to avoid confusion. Otherwise they are just being a bunch of pedophiles*.
*for the purposes of this post, a pedophile is one who redefines words without warning or reason to do so.
It’s fascinating how the character of God takes on so many different forms as befitting the concerns of believers in each age. What God wants, how God loves, God’s very methodology of relating to people seems to swing wildly from one era to the next, and among subgroups (fundamentalists get a personal relationship, academics get a philosophically correct abstract, and so on).
Of course, let’s not forget that the Bible has an example of evolution at work, right in Genesis 30: Jacob makes lambs look a striped sticks while mating, and so more striped lambs are born as a result. That’s how evolution works, right?
Great post, Mike - and Ben, your comment about the invisible and the non-existent looking very much alike…well, you pretty much stole my comment, but I’ll put a nice smiley in here now and all will be well.
Yeah Ben, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of some of Van Till’s comments, including that one you highlighted (I’d like to know what exactly he means by “supernaturalism”). It seemed like his views were a little more “extreme” than those of the others mentioned in the article (e.g. Collins, Miller or Haught). I think the article painted it as if all of them went as far as he did, whereas I don’t think that is really the case. For instance, both Miller’s and Collin’s comments about the possibility of miracles which I quoted would seem to indicate that they, in contrast to Van Till, are not anti-supernaturalists. At any rate, what I think it points to is the diversity of thought on the issue among theistic evolutionists, which in my book is a good thing.
Very interesting observation. I hadn’t noticed that before but you’re quite right.
Over the centuries, religious ideas have slowly changed to accommodate new science findings. Evolution has been the sticking point, with a large number of fundamentalists in stubborn denial for the last 150 years, though moderates have accepted the theory for the most part.
It seems to me that this article is an example of moderates making a renewed push for a broad religious adaptation that accommodates evolution. The timing is interesting, coming relatively quickly on the heels of the Dover ruling that put a big fat nail in the coffin of ID, which was the fundies “scientific” attempt to oppose scientific literacy. Also, I think even rank and file fundies are becoming increasingly aware of our country’s dismal science education levels and how dangerous that is for our economic future.
I’m thinking that the writing is on the wall and perhaps (please!) we’ll start to see a slow shift away from strict creationism even among the fundies. We can only keep our fingers crossed.
I think it’s very unfair of you (and others) to paint Dawkins at “one end of the spectrum”. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of theists believe in a god who loves them, listens to prayers, and performs miracles. This is all that Dawkins is dealing with and it’s dishonest to act otherwise. To make matters worse, a significant minority (in places a majority) of Christians believe in Creationism, so don’t go around attacking people like Dawkins who are confronting a very real problem. Do the honest thing and acknowledge that Dawkins is correct on many points and then move on to deal with disagreements.
As for making evolution consistent with Christianity.. I don’t see how you can do this. Evolution as a tool is insanely wasteful, time-consuming and cruel especially if you imagine that humans were the end goal (as the Christian bible teaches). The amount of suffering that is required to reach this goal is mind boggling. You can certainly make evolution consistent with deism, but if you believe in a god that is both willing and able to intervene, then evolution must conclusively demonstrate that your god is totally without morals. Is that the Christian god?
No chance. Just because you may believe in Christianity and evolution simultaneously, doesn’t mean they’re compatible.
Mike - maybe that sounded harsh. I don’t mean to say you are intentionally deceiving yourself or us, but by painting Dawkins and other atheists as extremists comparable to Ken Ham, I have a hard time believing that you understand what Dawkins has actually said, or are making your opponents views sound more unreasonable than they are in order to discredit them.
The article you quote uncritically says Dawkins “espouses” a fundamentalist God which is total bollocks. If you and your sources have a problem with someone, at least have the decency to deal with their views instead of some rabid strawman.
I noticed this as well. But to be totally fair we must concede that it’s not “curious” at all. Dawkins is arguing against the creationists, so he’s setting out to disprove their description of God.
One might similarly write this paragraph about the Cold War:
In a curious way, Kennedy and his fellow anti-communists espouse the same notion of communism that drives their sworn enemies, Castro and Kruschev. For both camps, the only version of Communism which makes sense is one which is a centralized totalitarian state.
There’s nothing curious about it. The creationists set the definition of God he’s fighting. To attack it is not to accept it as a valid definition for him personally.
If there’s a better definition of God, that’s not up to Dawkins to craft, it’s up to believers.
Your bio for Howard Van Till is a bit out of date. He has since begun to distance himself from the more orthodox theism of Calvin College, where I had him as an astronomy professor way back in the 80s. He spoke last year to the Freethought Association of West Michigan (http://www.freethoughtassociation.org/minutes/2006/May24-2006.htm) where he sounded more like a progressive style of Christian to me. I think he no longer calls himself a theist, even though his papers on Theistic Evolution continue to draw the most attention.
I think what is misleading is the notion that the progressive religious view is a new response to folks like Ham and Dembski or Dawkins, et. al. It’s been there as a separate historical phenomenon right around the time of the Scopes trial in the 20’s where Ham’s view of the world co-opted evangelicalism for many. Now at that time it was not even so much as a reaction to evolution as much as a stage along a consistent evolution in the dialogue between religion and science.
Also, it is also assumed that Genesis must be discussing an intentional and literal creation out of nothing. What is more likely in the Hebrew conception of the world is that it is discussing an intentional ordering of existing matter in the midst of this void. Void here meaning chaos represented by the seas. Here, “In the beginning…” does not mean a literal beginning, but a narrative device not unlike saying “In the beginning of this narrative of creation…” The 20th century was marked by an explosion of biblical scholarship and new and better ways of understanding texts in large part because those texts were opened up to criticism beyond that which would force interpretation to substantiate this or that dogmatic stance. We have more access to more texts and more continue to be found leading to new and important ways of understanding the cultures in which the texts were written. Hence the import of various critical tools that were simply not present. Remember that the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature are relatively new animals even though the study of the texts and theology have been around for far longer.
Finally, this is not a function of a “liberal” or “progressive” Christian making undue and irrational changes to “make religion fit”. Any theological doctrine develops in concert with the environment. Some are deluded into thinking that their doctrine is somehow eternal and immutable as the God they worship. This is just not true. Theology ought to strive to work with the whole of human knowledge as any humanistic and/or social discipline ought. When it does not, it creates a problem with the advance of the discipline altogether.
“Liberal” and “progressive” simply mean that there is a more open framework where what has been interpreted as orthodoxy and orthopraxis can be reinterpreted based on the time and place of the observer. This is where, I think that agnostics and progressive Christians have a lot of connection points. But atheists on the one side and orthodox Christians on the other have a bad taste for either of these positions and so, they tend to be more marginalized in the current debate because they are position that are more difficult to define in absolute terms.
The more moderate you want to be, the more you have to cherry pick and read the bible in a very specific way that is not done by most people. The more you need to do this, the more it weakens your claims that a) the bible is divine(ly inspired) b) religion is better for people to have than the alternative c) religion is required for a foundation of morality. It’s maybe fair to say that there are many layers to the bible and that the deepest layer is philosophically rich, and doesn’t contradict rationality. It’s not fair to say this deep layer is manifest, or that people are practicing “bad religion” when they don’t see it.
I also agree with the post above. Evolution, while clever, is inanely wasteful when you can do miracles. These moderates, while not dangerous in the same way as the majority, are approximately just as wrong. They’re merely attempting to reconcile their pre-existing faith in scripture with their pre-existing faith in rationality. This can be done, but not in an ultimately intellectually satisfying manner.
I’m still torn on whether the “New Atheist” approach is good or not. On the one hand, they are criticizing the type of religiosity typified by the majority. So it’s not fair to criticize them for caricature. On the other hand, this majority isn’t the audience that’s going to listen to the arguments. Who are? Either people who are already on the fence because of their disdain towards a typical religious person, or intelligent religious people who will find their portrait of religion unfair. Good for the former, unless they encounter the latter and decide that you can be a rational religious person after all. Bad for the latter, who think they’re being misrepresented.
For those curious about Van Till’s progression since his theistic evolution days, please take the time to read his own words here:
http://www.freethoughtassociation.org/essays/ODoRs.pdf
Mike and others who consider themselves theistic evolutionists might appreciate how he has moved beyond this. As I have.
Alas, Van Till’s paper is not available on that website any longer. I’m looking for a working link……
The article is yet more confirmation that theology is the process of making up beliefs that you feel happy with.
An important aspect of that process is sheilding your beliefs from any possibility of falsification by removing all content from them.
Kenosis?
I see.
So Jesus emptied himself of divine powers to walk on water, raise the dead, calm storms, heal blindness?
You have to laugh at modern theologians, who will say any old rubbish, if they think somebody (especially themselves) will believe it.
DREW
What is more likely in the Hebrew conception of the world is that it is discussing an intentional ordering of existing matter in the midst of this void. Void here meaning chaos represented by the seas.
CARR
NT Wright has a good point where he talks about the evilness of the natural world and the way that ancient Jewish writers regarded the evil sea as existing before God created anything.
I quote him ”The ancient Jewish writers saw the sea as evil. It floods and destroys the world. It stands between the Israelites and freedom. It rages horribly; monsters come out of it. There is a hint that God had to overcome the dark primal waters in order to create the world in the first place…’
Of course, Wright says exactly the opposite in other places.
He is a theologian. That is what he is paid to do.
@Steven Carr - I think you’re right on the money.
The sort of limp, twice-warmed theology of Collins and others doesn’t demonstrated how theology can be reconciled with science, it demonstrates the utter vacuity of liberal theology. There can be no way that this sort of special pleading and wishful thinking can ever be reconciled with science, at best you can water down your magical beliefs to the point that they’re so nebulous that they can no longer be disproved. Yet.
To make it worse, a lot of these liberal theologians will just talk about lofty notions of divine intelligence or learning about the cosmos when in the company of educated, scientifically minded people but when our backs are turned and they’re placed in a room with church-goers, all that goes out the window and suddenly they’re reduced to talking about Jesus’s miracles, and a magical, anthropomorphic god. Yuck.
At least the Creationists are consistent. (Though I’d rather have inconsistent Liberals than consistent fundies
)
Working with atheists can be hard because sometimes even when you agree with them they disagree with you.
The idea that God works through or using evolution is not an even remotely new concept and in no way requires the contortion or even reframing of scripture unless one is a Biblical literalist. Since mainline Christians do not believe that the creation story in Genesis is literal truth (and even many literalists don’t interpret the “days” as 24-hour periods) there is absolutely no conflict to seeing evolution as the way through which humans (and everything else living) came into being.
If Christians woke up tomorrow and said, “Oh, wait. Jesus was actually a giraffe,” then the argument that people are fundamentally changing scripture to fit what makes them happy may be true. That’s not the case here. This is just another example of new information reflecting our interpretation of other information. I would think that scientifically-minded people would be very comfortable with that notion.
@Arlen - the reason that I think evolution isn’t consistent with the bible has nothing to do with a generous/strict interpretation of Genesis, it has everything to do with whether the Christian god is thought to be loving, considerate, powerful, kind, gentle or merciful. If God is any of those things, then evolution proves this God doesn’t exist. Something has to give, either God isn’t powerful enough to Create, or God lacks a basic moral compass and cares nothing about suffering and injustice.
That’s why the Christian God isn’t compatible with evolution. It’s really a Problem of Suffering writ over 3.5 billion years.
I hope you understand I was joking.
Staring at sticks is not part of any known evolutionary genetics. 
Exactly why moderate and liberal (mainstream) churches have dramatically lost membership over the past few decades, while popularity of evangelical and fundamentalist churches (typically nondenominational) has grown wildly.
The weaker, more equivocal, less black-and-white claims are far less appealing to the majority of Americans, who prefer certainty and the superiority that comes with “knowing” your group and your theology is correct. I don’t see the moderate groups gaining huge numbers of adherents in the near future, unfortunately, because I think they appeal primarily to better-educated people who are more comfortable with ambiguity.
Isn’t kenosis that game in vegas with the crayons?
To me, looking as an outsider… sometimes with believers it feels like I’m watching a stage magician pulling off a trick, and I can see exactly where the smoke and mirrors are.
Case in point: kenosis. Is there a name for the “I looked up the original greek word from this passage, and THIS is what it literally translates as! PRESTO!” Instant goosebumps and satroi “ooh and ahh” “aha moment” for all believers (”WTF” moment for all nonbelievers… yeah, so what, a word means a word)?
Because there should be a name for that
“Ekenosen” means “he emptied,” “he emptied” means ekenosen. Big whoop.
For me evolution eroded my belief system in that it convinced me that the doctrine of the fall and original sin was simply not based in reality, just mythology. And if it is just myth, then the whole redemption thru Jesus story is superfluous.
By adjusting their view of God….That’s not fair. Those pesky Christians have gone and adopted science’s central premise. Test an idea, if it works use it, if it doesn’t change the idea…or is that engineering?
However if the supernatural is to be replaced by the natural (even if we cannot explain it at the moment) in Christianity then Christians will have to start explaining God in terms of attributes and properties.
Adrian:
I think if we fault God for not doing what we think God should do then we really just believe that God is a big “us” in the sky rather than a God. Bad stuff happens; that’s fairly well documented. I don’t think that just because God doesn’t step in and fix all of it that that somehow makes God unloving. In fact, if God did make everything hunky-dory then that would be to steal our free will as humans—that’s something I find much more reprehensible than allowing pain and death and tragedy.
Speaking as an atheist, and also as a mathematician, I can see the appeal of theistic evolution. It seems to me it’s like looking at the Mandelbrot Set and being able to admire and study the incredible complexity of it. You could look at an image and say “A truly divine being must have designed every tiny detail (infinitely many of them) and chosen exactly what colors and patterns to use for every little bit of it.” But a theistic evolutionist would say that God simply came up with the very simple equation and process that generates this enormous complexity. (What the atheist response would be in this metaphor, I’m not quite sure. I suppose it’s a moot point since there is very good evidence that a mathematician did in fact create the process that makes the Mandelbrot set.)
@Arlen
I don’t think that just because God doesn’t step in and fix all of it that that somehow makes God unloving. In fact, if God did make everything hunky-dory then that would be to steal our free will as humans—that’s something I find much more reprehensible than allowing pain and death and tragedy.
I don’t think that comes close to an adequate response. You are right that, perhaps we can’t apply our standards to a god, but if so then we should be consistent and honest and not say that god is loving, just, merciful or anything else since these are all applications of human standards to god. If God does not behave in a way that we recognize as just, loving, kind or merciful, then it is dishonest to say that he is. This is exactly what Christians do all the time.
In fact, it’s just what you’re trying to do. I didn’t say that God is unloving because God doesn’t intervene to stop shoplifting. But yes, it isn’t loving to stand by and accept suffering unless it is somehow instructive. What can people learn by starving to death? What is learned by the deaths of 100 million people from Influenza in 1918? And since we’re talking about evolution, what is learned by the suffering deaths of billions of billions of animals for hundreds of millions of years? If we’re to learn anything, it’s that any god doesn’t care one whit about suffering.
As you say, God cares far more about some abstract ideals of “freedom” than about anything else including our well-being, fairness, suffering or happiness. That’s why millions of Africans have the freedom to starve to death every year without God intervening to give them food.
Whatever God that is, it isn’t a God who came to earth to sacrifice himself for us, who loves us, who listens to our prayers and heals the sick. In short, it is no Christian god, that’s for sure.
It’s not too far from the ideas of Lamarckian Evolution. (Which is of course to say that it has nothing to do with evolution, as you pointed out.)
Constantly redefining God doesn’t make him any more or less real, just more convenient.
I’ve never had too much of a problem with theistic evolution. It’s wrong, but since the scientific theory is about mechanisms and not goals or meaning, there’s not too much harm in it directly.
However, what I worry about more is that it provides inductive evidence for the proposition that science and faith will always be reconcilable. And since a universe with no god would almost certainly be fundamentally different than one with a god (if not, the statement “god exists” is just vacuous), it’s completely possible that science will one day discover something about reality so antithetical to theistic belief as to make reconciliation possible. When this happens, I’d be much happier if a consensus already existed among theists as to which form of evidence is valid in a crunch. It makes more sense to figure this out among slightly less threatening ideas as this makes a violent response less likely. As such, accepting theistic evolution without really considering its epistemic considerations seems like a bad idea to me, in principle. (So as to not appear one-sided, such a consensus already exists among most atheists; namely “show us the evidence and we’ll believe that the proposition ‘God exists’ is true.”)
Not necessarily. If you redefined the word “god” to mean “computer monitor,” it would clearly exist. (For proof, please look forward.) While this is an intentionally absurd example, there’s no obvious reason why a suitable redefinition couldn’t change “god” from a nonexistent entity to an existent one, save that most theists would be unhappy with any “suitable” redefinition that I can think of right now.
Adrian:
Out of nothing but the utmost respect for your time and mine, I’d rather not get into a prolonged argument over theodicy. I have my own thoughts on the matter, but so do several millennia worth of writers, philosophers, and theologians who have each dedicated more of their life than I have to consider the question; I suggest that you read those arguments if you are genuinely curious.
Arlen
I have read theodicies before. From what I can tell, they seem to boil down to special pleading.
Keeping it simple, if Christians claim that God is loving (or, ugh, Love) then they’ve chosen to use English and accept its English meanings. So just as we know a parent is not “loving” if they stand by and watches their children starve to death or otherwise abandons them, we know that God is not loving.
Also keeping it simple, if you want to say that we can’t apply our morals to God, then you cannot spin around and apply moral judgements to God yourself. That’s hypocrisy and whatever our basis in morality, we can recognize that.
Miko
Finally, a god that listens to my requests and responds!
It doesn’t sound like he’s curious, it sounds like he’s gotten to the heart of the problem with a popular response in theodicy. This response, I think, can be emblematically seen in the Book of Job: the idea that God’s justice is of a different nature than our justice. So we are left wondering why we should call his justice any kind of justice. We are left with two warring intuitions: the intuition that our justice is valid, and that what we percieve as evil is genuinely evil, and the intuition that God exists. It comes down to which intuition you think is more legitimate, but it also makes obvious that these two intuitions are at war with each other, and to state that evolution is evidence for God’s majesty–in effect, that these intuitions actually reinforce each other–is absurd.
Now you know how the “New Atheists” feel about how they’ve been labeled!
The arguments for theistic evolution are bunk, plain and simple. The image of God promoted by both the Old and New Testaments is of a micro-managing father-God, furthermore, there is nothing particularly loving about being disinterested in the details of things. If God made the effort to create the cosmos, then why should God not be concerned with what exactly it is? That aside, this line of thinking promotes moderation of Christianity, and that is a good thing.
Supposing that a deterministic theory of the universe’s laws exists, it’s not inconceivable that a god could design a system so that certain desirable properties would arise after a certain number of iterations. Mathematicians do the same basic thing with cellular automata and I’ve heard it proposed by some physicists (I don’t recall who) that CA provide a good (if nonstandard) way to model physics.
I’d argue that the current state of the universe suggests that if a god did do this, it did so rather ineptly. And of course such a deterministic theory would naturally blow free-will right out of the water to the greatest degree imaginable, making it unpalatable to the religious and nonreligious alike.
Seconded.
That’s a horrible term and doesn’t make much sense considering what the individual terms theism and evolution mean.
“Yeah, evolution explains the diversity and appearance of design in all known forms of life, but maybe an unknown magic intelligence interfered in the process for unknown reasons, and perhaps that unknown magic intelligence was the one I believe in.”
It actually has nothing to do with evolution at all. Clearly this God is like a pigeon fancier who artificially selects species, not like the naturalistic natural selection of evolution (so not “through” or “using” evolution as it’s sometimes described). I think they need to stop using those terms or I might start to think it’s confusing on purpose.
It’s clearly a God of the gaps, and treads on science’s turf, if not on current scientific knowledge. It seems rather strange, I think I’m going to enjoy someone explain the narrative of intervention of species success. “And this is where God sent a comet to kill most of the species on the planet, that must be the third mass extinction already. Needs must, as I always say, you can’t make a human without the death of billions of creatures great and small”.
Or you could say that a mathematician discovered the set out of the infinite possibility space….
BTW, I had fun back in the early 90’s in graduate school writing programs to plot out that set and others…
Sorry Bad, I guess I didn’t see the part about the sticks. I was referring to the practice of genetic engineering which Jacob appears to have made use of, which of course is based on evolutionary principles.
I’m sorry miller, I don’t quite follow you. Are you saying that “New Athiests” are bothered by being labeled as “new”?
Nothing I or the article said was intended to be offensive or “attacking” of Dawkins, Adrian. I’m sorry that it came across that way. The point was simply that Dawkins and Creationists share somethings in common, namely their working definition of “God” and the assumption that science and faith are irreconcilably opposed. Of course the difference is that Creationists think that God exists and Dawkins clearly doesn’t.
I don’t see what is inaccurate or offensive about simply acknowledging any of that.
BTW Drew, I just wanted to say that I thought this comment was very well said, and you covered a lot of what I wanted to say on the topic as well.
Mike
Hmm…
You do understand that Dawkins does not espouse any view of god, right? He is simply dealing with the many views of God that are espoused by others. Yes, the Creationist Superman view of God is one that he tackles outright but not because he thinks that’s the only one that doesn’t exist, but because Creationists are so destructive. If you’ve actually read his book “The God Delusion”, you’ll see that he goes much deeper and broader than that. If you aren’t a deist, I think you’ll find that he skewers your God just as effectively as Ken Ham’s.
The only attributes he assumes are some simple ones - god is powerful, cares about humanity, intervenes in our affairs (e.g.: Jesus & miracles), and is somehow eternal and external to our universe. I’d have to double-check my book, but I think that’s it. That fits even the most tepid forms of Christianity, and certainly deals with Theistic Evolutionists!
Mike C wrote:
Let’s take that point by point.
Again, this is like saying Castro and Kennedy agreed about their vision of what communism meant because they both shared it, one as a goal and one as something to end.
I’d say right there that you haven’t read the God Delusion. Dawkins does make a core assumption that he shares with creationists, but this isn’t it.
The assumption that the book rests upon is this: if this universe has a God in it, we should be able to tell by looking at the natural world.
He does not like the idea of “faith” as he takes that to be an opposing process to science. But he does not think that science is irreconcilably opposed to feelings of wonder and the thrill of discovery and finding awe in life itself, rather that it can enhance it. He thinks that if we find some God-like thing in the universe, or some base core truth of the universe, it’ll be science which finds it, and not incense-burning, tea-leaf reading mysticism. It will be the process of rigorous disciplined searching, and not feelings from beyond.
I agree with Siamang. A god that “might nudge events in the natural world through imperceptible changes at the quantum level” is utterly untestable, so this baloney boils down to another god-of-the-gaps.
Me either. (shrug).
Yes, I agree. That’s exactly what I am saying.
If that is the foundational assumption of the book then that is exactly where Dawkins goes wrong in his argument against theism. Theistic belief is NOT that “this universe has a God in it”. Theistic belief is that there is a God beyond the universe, who created it and remains involved with it and yet is also in some ways distinct from it.
But again, this is besides the point. The point was simply that none of this was intended to be an attack on Dawkins. Maybe the article misrepresented him, maybe not, but either way I don’t think the intent was to paint him negatively.
PLANTINGA
God is a necessaty being who exists in every possible world
DAWKINS
Does God exist in this world?
RANDOM THEIST
Dawkins betrays his ignorance of Christian theology by claiming that Christians believe God exists in this universe
CARR
Theology is double-speak, where God exists in worlds but not universes.
God sustains the laws of physics at all times, but does not tell the universe how to behave???
It is all just made up.
Haught, Collins etc are just sitting at their desks, making things up from the top of their head, and declaring themselves to be clever people who have made up important things which people should believe are true.
Mike,
The “New Atheists” label, as far as I know, was coined by an article in Wired. I have seen very few people who are happy with the name. Even most critics seem to think the name is inaccurate or even arrogant (not realizing that it was the critics who coined the term!). So, yes, atheists are unhappy with the term, but it appears to have stuck. You seemed similarly unhappy with the “new theology” term. It really isn’t new at all, is it?
Hate to be difficult here but:
I do believe God is *in* the universe. Or as much of a God that might be known, that is that could be experienced. Anything else I wouldn’t know about or make claims about.
I don’t see how evolution goes against belief in God unless one protrays God as some omni everything being who is masterminding evolution from above, as opposed to say the creative factor/s that struggle to bring order, existence, etc. into a reality.
Some protest that to speak of such terms is the playground of theologians and not representative of religion, except that I dare say that evolution is an accepted fact by most Jews in the US and the western world. And that within liberal Protestantism it is as well.
When you have the new creed of the United Church (the largest protestant denomination in Canada) speak not just of God as creator but as creating, that is it’s an ongoing process, the evidence that evolution is a given should be made evident.
MikeClawson,
We’re not doing poetry here, what is beyond the universe? What are the properties of beyond the universe, what are the properties of this God, and where did it come from?
We’re not? aww, shucks. I’m out then!
I’m sorry I didn’t read the rest of the thread, but your question caught my eye.
“Beyond” the universe? Isn’t the universe thought to be infinite? What can be beyond infinite? Does that mean that the universe can be contained? My mind is having a hard time grasping that. Is that really the theistic belief, Mike? Does that mean that I’m not a theist if I disagree? I’m so confused.
I think I’ll write a poem.
I used to believe in theistic evolution when I was a Christian. Now I can’t remember how that was any different than Intelligent Design.
Whether God is in or of or beyond the universe is meaningless twaddle. It’s emotive and makes grammatical sense, but conveys no meaning at all.
The Christian God does interact within the universe - miracles, Jesus, prayers, prophets, Holy Spirit guidance - and it is through this interaction that Christians claim to know that it exists, and so it is through this interaction that we can test its existence.
The issue here Linda is whether God is “in” the universe in the same sense that a human being, or a planet, or a galaxy is “in” it… i.e. as simply one more isolated feature of the larger whole, and thereby caused by and dependent on it.
Most forms of theism would say no, God is not simply one feature of the universe. Instead they would say that God is the origin and creator of the universe. They would say that the universe came from God, not vice versa - that before the universe existed, God was, and if the universe ever comes to an end, God will still be. God is not a limited entity that exists within the larger context of the universe, rather the universe itself exists within the larger reality of God, as her beloved creation. That is what I mean by saying that God is “beyond” the universe.
And BTW, I’m not an expert in physics, but as far as I understand it, the universe is not infinite. The universe is expanding, right? So it’s not infinite in space. And it had a beginning at the Big Bang, right? So it’s not infinite in time. So yes, theoretically the universe could be contained within a larger medium.
ID opposes evolution, or says that God has to step into the gaps of evolution to finish the job. Theistic evolution embraces evolution and says that it was the system God set up in the first place for the unfolding and ongoing creation of her world.
Thanks miller, that makes sense. I didn’t realize that most atheists were unhappy with it. I kind of thought it was a compromise term, one that was less accurate but also less offensive than some of the alternative ways of describing Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. Personally I prefer the term “anti-theist” as I think it’s more descriptively accurate, but others have taken offense at that too, so I just stick with “New Atheists” since that seems to be the journalistic standard now.
Don’t they both say that humanity is the pinnacle of creation and that evolution has intentional direction, purposely leading to more complex and intelligent lifeforms?
Anyway, your second definition is what I used to believe (except for the “her” part). Now my basic explaination is “sh*t happens”.
Mike
It’s possible to hold that God is the creator of the universe without postulating that God is outside of it. I’m thinking of Aristotle here. The other alternative is not pantheism either, because it’s possible for there to be an ingredient, a factor that is the cause of any one thing without it being everywhere (water seems to be a necessity for biological life but we’re not all water). So to say that God is one fact among many (Tillich would take me to task on this to be sure) doesn’t reduce or limit God’s role as creator.
Mike C wrote:
Man, I’ve got to remember to word this stuff carefully when talking to you!
Sorry about the imprecise informal language, here I’ve completely messed up Dawkins’ argument. Let me restate, legalistically:
If this universe has a God INTERACTING AT ALL WITH it, we should be able to tell by looking at the natural world.
Mike,
It’s not at all clear that the universe did have a beginning (as you’re thinking of) at the Big Bang, no. That aside, your last sentence about the universe being “contained within” something is a good example of a sentence which sounds valid - it’s certainly grammatically correct - but which is meaningless. “Containment” is a concept which is limited to our spacial dimensions, it isn’t something which makes sense when talking about the spacial dimensions themselves! It is an appeal purely to a naive view of the universe as some sort of rubber sheet floating in space and does not translate to space itself.
Wonderful. How is this supposed to help anything? Not only is this not consistent with the bible, this god is so fantastically complex that it makes it more probable that the universe winked into existence last Tuesday, just out of sheer random chance. And since you’ve carefully stuffed your god so deeply into the gaps of our knowledge that it’s impossible to gather direct evidence, we might as well adopt Last Tuesdayism as a rational alternative.
I don’t recall anywhere in scripture that describes humanity as the “pinnacle of creation” in any sort of biological/evolutionary sense.
Some have, though it appeared to me that this article was describing a different breed of theistic evolutionists that don’t really seem to make that claim.
Dwight, I’ve noticed and appreciated your explanation of this view of God. I am aware of that view, though, since it’s not where I’m at with things at the moment, I figured I’d just let you expound on it without much comment from me. I don’t really have much to say about it one way or the other. It’s certainly a possibility, just not one that I’ve personally embraced.
Perhaps so, though I guess it would depend on the nature of the interaction. But we’ve already covered this ground several times already in recent discussions about miracles. I don’t see any need to rehash the same territory.
Though if I’m recalling Dawkins argument in TGD correctly, I think you had it right the first time around. His basic argument about “why there is almost certainly no God” rests on the presumption that God is subject to the same natural laws as anything else within the universe. (The whole “complex forms arising out of less complex forms” thing.) As many have pointed out, this argument only works if God is in fact contained within the universe. However, if God exists prior to and distinct from the universe, then God is not necessarily subject to the laws that operate within it, and therefore Dawkins’ argument is pretty much irrelevant.
When we’re talking about these sorts of realities, even from a scientific point of view, it seems to me that all of our language is necessarily metaphorical.
Sorry Adrian but you lost me. I’m not following your argument. I’m not even sure you are making an argument. Perhaps you’re just expressing your dislike of my views? If so, I’m more than happy to say “duly noted” and let you have the last word.
Guys, I know MikeC more than likely won’t go for this “New Theology”, but take a look at this: http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html
Spong’s 12 Theses are at the bottom of his statement. Don’t know if this makes you feel like reading it or not, but some people call him an atheist, heretic, etc just from this. Take a look. IF my only two choices were Spong’s deal or traditional beliefs (meaning if Humanism wasn’t an option) I’d side with Spong. Thing is, what he is proposing is considered Christian Humanism. So, I’d still be chosing Humanism if those were my only options in life.
Make note of what all he says about Darwin and alike. I say more power to him if he can get more than just the Sea of Faith and a few other like groups doing this. Seems better than the alternative and more humanistic. Definitely non-theistic in many respects.
I don&