God or Nature?

[Philosophy Now]

by Grant Bartley

https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/God_or_Nature

[Age]

God or Nature?
by Grant Bartley
This would have been a big year for Darwin, if he had been fit enough to survive this long.

I would have thought that if one was going to write about "darwin", then they would, at least, use the 'fit' word in relation to the way "darwin" itself USED, and MEANT, that word.

The intellectual fact of 2009 is that it’s Darwin’s bicentenary (February 12th), and the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the publication of On The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection (November 24th). In this issue we explore some of the philosophical fallout of Darwin’s thought explosion, including a featurette on evolutionary ethics and a focus on some of Darwin’s intellectual disciples, notably Spencer, Huxley and Dewey. But let me comment briefly on the religious vs science debate.

Many atheists will celebrate the current Darwin promotion as further evidence of the evolution of society away from a primitive abyss of reasonless superstition. This deduction would be premature. In a recent ‘Question of the Month’ competition (Issue 67) we asked: ‘Is there a God?’ The answers from our well-educated and presumably scientifically-aware readers were basically, Yes 52%, No, 31% and Don’t Know 17% – an overall majority for God. This response from a small and self-selected sample is hardly a scientific survey of reader opinion, but it may reflect a general truth that many people believe in evolution while also believing in a God.

Well considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that BOTH, co-exist, then it surely would not be too surprising.

This doesn’t necessarily mean they are irrational. We may no longer require a divine Designer to explain how we came to be here (what Aristotle would have called an ‘efficient cause’). Evolutionary theory suggests that all that is needed are the right physical conditions and lots of time.

BUT, if the ones who propose 'evolution' ALSO propose an expanding and beginning universe, then they still have some explaining to do as to HOW, (and later on WHY), evolution, itself, BEGAN.

But the competition entries gave other reasons for a belief in God, many having to do with purpose (purpose being the ‘teleological cause’ in Aristotle’s scheme of types of explanation). Mary Midgley argues for purpose as part of evolution. Furthermore, it does seem coherent to imagine a Creator creating the world in such detail that specific quantum events manifest just those mutations by which natural selection led precisely to us. For such reasons God is not vanquished simply by the establishment of evolutionary theory. Acceptance of an evolutionary timescale could even mean a larger perspective on God’s designs.

Evolution AND God FIT IN, PERFECTLY, TOGETHER. That is; for those who are Truly INTERESTED.

Such unsanctioned expansions of perception are precisely the sort of growth religions seem to resist.

But you believe that the 'scientific community' does not resist expanding their perception to God existing, correct?

Thus to the other side of the debate: why do creationists so vehemently resist the theory of evolution?

Why do "evolutionists" so vehemently resist the creation theory?

Why is it important to them that God dictated the Bible? Is it merely a question of authority?

Why is it important to the scientific community and to "scientists" that people like "darwin" and "einstein" were/are right? So, the same can be asked as why is it important to these people that these "higher people" dictated scientific literature and writings?

The authority of a religious hierarchy evidently rests on its claim to know what its god thinks, and to represent its god’s thinking. Yet a claim to authority becomes increasingly untenable the more the alleged source of knowledge comes under reasonable criticism by people who prefer a different authority – in the present case, the Bible and the church’s interpretation of it by people who prefer the authority of science.

So why do "scientists" use a 'claim to authority' AS WELL, especially when the more alleged source of knowledge comes under reasonable criticism by people who prefer a different 'authority', like irrefutable proof or Truth, for example?

The Inquisition knew this when it attempted to repress Galileo. Archaeologically-reconstructed natural history is violently incompatible with the literal meaning of the creation stories in Genesis (did you know there are two versions?). For example, in Genesis 1, the plants are created before the sun and the moon (!), and the birds before large land creatures. Imaginative theologians might reinterpret the text in modern cosmological terms, but the fact that such attempts are not loudly proclaimed from evangelical HQ suggests a resolutely secured mind-set: an intellectual siege mentality.

But the meaning of the creation stories, which you are referring to here, are NOT the 'literal meanings'.

They are just yours and "others" MISINTERPRETED meanings.

I sometimes used to think ‘infallibility’ was a question of control; but now I think that for the evangelical in the pew it’s more about security. If it is no longer obvious how, or even that, the Biblical text is to be taken as the guaranteed words of God, uncertainty is introduced – whereas certainty is what gives you peace of mind. How can you now be sure what God thinks? One way to slice through this paradox is to cling to literal infallibility.

OR, you could TWIST and DISTORT 'things' AROUND, like you are here, so that you feel MORE SECURE in your thoughts and BELIEFS here.
[quote
One nagging question when faced with textual uncertainty is ‘How could God lie?’ The furthest visible heavenly objects, quasars, are of the order of ten billion light years away (and light itself provides our standard for time). Since we can see them, it follows that the universe looks at least ten billion years old, rather than the six thousand or so claimed by creationists. [/quote]

'Looks' can be DECEIVING. For example, the sun 'looks' like it revolves around earth.

A creationist may respond that God created the universe just to appear very old (this is sometimes said about fossils). But this would be God lying too – systematically, and on a vast scale.

But this is NOT God lying. This is just a STORY told TO you BY a human being.

In this case, would God be morally any better than Descartes’ all-deceiving evil demon? So rather than denying the overwhelming evidence,

But the 'overwhelming evidence' is that the sun actually does revolve around earth.

maybe a more nuanced understanding of the word ‘Inspired’ would be a wiser project for the spiritually inclined. Heaven forbid?

But 'the word of God' has always been in relation to being 'transpired' and/or 'inspired' BY God, has it not?

If not, then WHO here actually thought or believed that the bible was written by God, Itself?

The inescapable conclusion from the history of ideas is that how we think about biology will be very different in another hundred and fifty years (Massimo Pigliucci offers a summary of the evolution of evolutionary theory so far); but Darwin currently appears to have the evidence overwhelmingly on his side.

If a human being can NOT see CHANGE happening AND occurring, thus EVOLUTION, then they ARE BLIND.

Equally evidently, what our natural history was is a different issue from the purpose of it – the implication being that the answer to the God question will not be found through evolutionary debate.

What do you even envision is there to 'debate' in relation to 'evolution', itself?

I would argue that science ultimately cannot deal with questions of purpose, that is, of teleology, of the need to justify existence, because on the contrary, science’s field of study is the detail of the mechanism and material of the physical world.

But I think you will find that you do NOT have to 'argue' this because as far as I am aware there is NO one who thinks or believes that 'science' deals with the 'WHY of things' anyway.

I believe that for many the answer to the question of a purpose for existing will instead spin on whether or not (and how) they think a God is credible given the pain, suffering and evil inescapable in the world.

Well IF you were somewhat OPEN here, then you would NOT BELIEVE what you do here.

And if you EVER wanted to 'TRY TO' argue FROM the position of pain, suffering, and/or evil, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and 'TRY'. I would be the FIRST one who would like to have THAT DISCUSSION WITH you.

[adamusa]

God and Nature are closely related to each other. God is the Creator of Nature, the source of life and everything in the universe. Nature is the place where God's power and wisdom manifests, where people can admire the beauty and wonder of creation. slither io