In this, I am not going to consider actual evidence for the existence of God (I'll save that for a later post), instead, I want to address aspects of my personal philosophy—habits of my mind—that I believe have made me receptive to Christian belief.
I believe that we are capable of understanding much (if not all) of the world around us. I hope that as our understanding grows (and along with it our ability to impact the world), our wisdom will grow too.
I believe that reason is a guide to understanding, but that the world cannot be fully comprehended on the basis of pure logic alone. Instead, we must discover various physical laws, contingencies, etc. But as a mathematician, I believe that elegance is indicative of truth. Thus, the best applied theories derive a lot of observational evidence from modest non-tautological stipulations and a lot of pure reasoning. I.e., I believe that Occam's razor is a reasonable means for preferring one hypothesis over another.
For example, the theory of evolution explains a lot from a little. It not only explains the variation in species today, it explains how they've varied over time, and the relationship of historical species to current species. It explains why analysis of shared characteristics permitted Linnaeus to organize extant species into tree, and it explains why phylogenetic reconstructions based on DNA produce essentially the same tree. It makes testable predictions, e.g., that intermediate forms between fish and amphibians existed, which have subsequently been confirmed.
Contrast this to creationism, or it's illegitimate stepchild intelligent design, which attempts to explain only the variation in species today, and which makes no testable predictions.
Likewise, the theory of a loving God explains a lot from a little. It explains not only the existence of religion, but the miracle of faith. It explains why the physical constants of the Universe seem so finely tuned to enable life. It explains why humans who indulge in altruistic behavior are often satisfied by that behavior, whereas humans who indulge in selfish behavior often find only transient satisfaction.
Yes, there are other explanations for each of these, e.g., the “multiverse” hypothesis of cosmology, which ends up by arguing that life had to happen somewhere, and this is the place, but I am aware of no other common explanation for these diverse observations.
Yes, there is a little bit of Polkinghorne in these explanation, but I'll justify this by saying that he did a particularly good job of articulating what I already believed :-).
Peace
9 comments:
i often think of evolution being propogated in education with almost no evidence whatsoever
...it wrankles me when i hear it stated as a law
the beauty subtlety majesty sheer amazing fact of earthly existence is a far greater testament to an intelligent author...primo intelligentsia
i mean the biologists assume that they're making all these important species connections with bits and pieces of bone...i mean i understand the desire to want to put the puzzle together but i think we have to admit we have only a small fraction of the puzzle at our disposal small small small....the darwinist progression by means of mutation and environmental adaptation makes sense at a very fundamental level
but nobody has ever seen it happen
except perhaps at the microbial level
the pooh pooh ing of intelligent design often fascinates me because it suggests that people are inherently blind...i mean the whole tradition of natural law is dismissed like people never saw anything before
trees have rings
water flows
insects hatch with moisture and heat
animals mate
seasons change
snowflakes are always sixpointed
buffaloes roam
salmon spawn ants build tunnels
beavers build dams
there are predictable phenomena in nature...there are observable certainties....there are events that recur and recur and one cannot help but see patterns
i prefer author of life to intelligent designer
but the link to the knowledge of man knowledge of himself and the world is linked to the attribute
our intellect is the indication that intellect is in the world and it has an author...our intellects are designed
to still maintain that darwin has anything to offer the world in terms of meaningful insight is the hallmark of a megolaomaniacal control freak...i mean it is the classic reductionism (read mary midgely) it makes everyone bow down and worship a pattern in the quilt...in effect darwin observed intelligent design...he was just hestiatnt to call it that because he wanted to leave some room open for natural creativity and variability,,,but is ever unstated observation is -- i see something and the character of something i am understanding the essence of finches and turtles as something that i did not put here- there fore i must at least entertain the possibility of a metaphysical origin to the beauty of the finch --
i don't know
i think everyone should make an attempt to look at nature again as if darwin never happened
he is an idiot
highly overated
the michael jackson of pop science
hair on fire and all
naw
we gots to get away from ole charlie
he's nuts
i mean as silliy as it sounds it could be that nothing has changed in 200,000 years everything we see looks just like it did 200000 yrs ago except for soem river changes and a few glacial diversions and some seacoast loss and the dams
maybe the sparrow i see today looked just that way 2 million yrs ago
maybe the cat i see looked like that
maybe the dogs have changed because man has changed them
but robins have been around for billions of years
basically it comes down to the fact that we were placed here by people from outter space some 10,000 ago and the planet hasn't been the same since...all the other creatures are bearing with ancient resentments concerneing the arrival of the humans i do think there will one day be a largescale animal revolt
i still believe that people who live directly at the benefit of the earth grow their own food make their own sustenance these folks know more than the scientists...maybe if they are also scientists they have an even greater advantage of this i will acknowledge but simple knowledge of land is as legitmate for knowing the planet as is big book and lab learnin
i find it amazing that you don't seem to indicate that the beauty of the natural world is an expression of god's creative love and grace...i mean give up the science and try on the poetry glasses
you're striving so far ahead in thought you've got some steam built up you're like a cognitive steam engine rollin down the track
and i'm just a lonesome hobo not sure if i need to catch a new train or not
roll on big iron roll on
j
i often think of evolution being propogated in education with almost no evidence whatsoever
The evidence for evolution is substantial. It is a testable theory that makes predictions, and has met its tests. Coyne's recent book "Why Evolution is True" is a reasonable and accessible place to begin, for those unwilling to tackle original sources or more demanding material.
My understanding is that in the greater Catholic Church (i.e., outside of the USA), acceptance of evolution is the norm, and it is difficult for european Catholic scholars to believe that people in the US seriously believe anything else. If this is incorrect, I would like to know.
As for intelligent design, I think you misunderstand my contempt.
I believe that creationists (people who believe and teach that God created the Universe) have grasped a great truth, at the expense of the details. They see the forest but not the trees. I give them a great deal of credit for trying to live a life of faith, although I disagree with the scriptural literalism that informs their approach.
Atheistic darwinists are perfect complements to this. They understand the details, but have missed the forest. God is the first cause, and God continues to be involved in the world. I give them credit for intellectual rigor, although I regret that they have chosen to impoverish their live by neglecting the important dimensions of spirituality and faith.
So-called “intelligent design” is simply creationism without the integrity to name a creator. What is there to respect in that? It is neither fish nor fowl, but merely foul.
But I believe it is possible to hold onto both faith and science. Both seek the truth, and the truth is not incompatible with the truth.
i find it amazing that you don't seem to indicate that the beauty of the natural world is an expression of god's creative love and grace...i mean give up the science and try on the poetry glasses
Actually, I have no difficulty whatsoever seeing God's grace and love in the beauty of the natural world. I'm much more of a photographer than a poet. I dabbled a bit with the idea of posting some of my photographs, but I was discouraged both by technological limitations within blogger (you wouldn't believe what it did to one of my favorite photos), and out of scope as my notion as to what this blog would be about crystalized.
I see God as a creator and sustainer, not as a puppeteer. God created a universe in which life could exist. He relates to and is involved in the universe he created. But I think he leaves it (and us) with considerable freedom. The theory of evolution lives within that freedom.
the crazy fact is
we can see god's work
we can only speculate as to how it may have changed
change is part of god's work
the problem with darwinism as with so many highly generalized theories that took on popstar status in culture in the 20th century is that is that they eventually become paradigmatic people start interpreting the world by means of the thought system...but if we are to really think about the place of such theories in our looking at the world we would have to say honestly they are only reductions of thought efforts at creating a complete compendium of working resources for understanding but actually failing in the effort...there's the illusion of comprehensiveness....maybe it's that ole graden of eden tree of knowledge theme again comlete with pride at the sweet center of the fruit
the official catholic line on evolution stemming most immediately from the words of JOHN PAUL II the great is that it is a useful theory a logical assessment of the working of nature but not complete not without the recognition of it as a scientific reduction of sorts...and yes since tielhard de chardin the notion of the reconcilable character of modern science and faith is fairly de rigeur in rome...although there is a school of postmodernist-thomists who seem to think we're on a dead end track by putting so much faith in science
recently i've been giving a lot of tours of our abbey church and i have to explain our relic chapel to people who've never conceived of such a thing...this idea that our heritage in faith was carried by people real people in history albeit now somewhat draped in legend but real saints who expressed in their lives something essential about the faith we follow...this aspect it seems to me tempers the debate of theology vs science....for instance when we see that st thomas not only codified the reasonable route toward truth he also composed brilliant little hymns to our lady and for the processions involving the eucharist....or that hildegaard wrote littel treatises on herbal medicines and music or that ardent prayerful connections are maintained between desperate souls and say st jude who is our patron st of hopeless causes...we have patron saints...
i believe because so many interesting and crazy christians have gone before me with faith and smiles...even to the blade
say what you will the whole protestant movement started with a flawed trajectory and now it seems way off course fearful even
and i think it has to do with the idea of the sanctity of every living thing...there's a grievous metaphysical flaw in protestantism...but far be it from me to remove the sharp sliver from their eye i have problems enough with the rafter in my own
j
the problem with darwinism as with so many highly generalized theories that took on popstar status in culture in the 20th century is that is that they eventually become paradigmatic people start interpreting the world by means of the thought system
Undoubtedly, but this does not invalidate Darwinism within its original domain.
if we are to really think about the place of such theories in our looking at the world we would have to say honestly they are only reductions of thought efforts at creating a complete compendium of working resources for understanding but actually failing in the effort
Actually, I agree to a certain extent, but see this as a virtue. Let me explain. Consider a science like biology -- this contains a tremendous mass of observational data. How can we understanding this? What does it even mean to understand this?
Among testable theories that explain observational data, theories that involves fewer bits of information to specify are greatly to be preferred. This is Occam's razor. What seems to you to be laziness is actually understanding.
this idea that our heritage in faith was carried by people real people in history albeit now somewhat draped in legend but real saints who expressed in their lives something essential about the faith we follow
I understand the value of making history real. I understand that relics can bring home the fact that these were real people. But the hard part of making history real is in fleshing out the full person, and I wonder if the use of relics doesn't sometimes make a person one-dimensional.
Here's an analogy. I recently visited the Alamo at San Antonio. It's an interesting place, with plenty of relics from the Texan war of independence on display. But the caretakers of the Alamo have mythologized what happened there, as they've tried to force all the ambiguity of that war into a one-dimensional narrative.
say what you will the whole protestant movement started with a flawed trajectory and now it seems way off course
I believe you're wrong, it's just something that we'll have to disagree over. Luther did not seek schism, but rather reform. Separation came through excommunication, not through secession. And as regards a number of central issues of the reformation (the theology of justification, worship in the vernacular) the Catholic Church has subsequently adopted positions that all but indistinguishable from those taken by the reformers. Sadly, our trajectories post reformation have diverged in significant ways. We now ordain women. You now believe in Papal infallibility. Each of us has continued our struggle to be the church of Jesus Christ, and we've sometimes gone about it in different ways.
but far be it from me to remove the sharp sliver from their eye i have problems enough with the rafter in my own
That's the human condition we all share.
Peace
i only believe in papal infallibity as it applies to the doctrines of our faith
in matters of music i am free to disagree with the pople in matters of science i am free to disagree with the pope in matters of politics i am free to disagree with the pople
in matters of doctrine the holy father is beholden to his theological equals perhaps some of them are even his superiors and he knows it
i think pope benedict is willing to show his humanness willing to risk making human mistakes...as was john paul II
but on matters of doctrine his theological acumen is pretty clear and powerful
the notion about recognizing a pope is a way of constantly challenging ones faith as a matter of growth...the existence of a pope more or less beckons all christians to know and understand more
i know you think i'm wrong about the trajectory thing and i want you to know i think it could very well be numerous mobious flips in time and space and that maybe there is eventual wrapping around of ideas...somehow the protestant reaction grew further and further away from healthy metaphysics...by the time kant treated the possibility of metaphysics he had already pretty well abandoned the whole system of historical deliberation on the matter...and i don't speak of metaphysics as a domain of understanding unique to philosophers
one of the things about the metaphysics of thoms was that he insited that it had to somehow pass muster with the man on the street...he didn't trust academic purity
the other thing is the continual cycle of prayer the monastic orders and the cloistered contemplative movements..these people have sustained a tradition that is all but lost on the rest of christianity...somehow i don't know if it will be possible to reach an understanding between the protestant factions without the glowing coals of prayer adn the recognition of the work done by contempltive women and men...i can't see the protestant world returning to a healthy metaphysics without the understanding of the vitalness of the prayer power houses...little out of the way places that nobody suspects but the maintenance of the world happens there it really does no matter what the goddam humanists think
j
i know you think i'm wrong about the trajectory thing and i want you to know i think it could very well be numerous mobious flips in time and space and that maybe there is eventual wrapping around of ideas
I like the idea (which I'll attribute to you, above) that different Christian groups, the Catholic, the Orthodox, the Protestants, form a braid through time. In our differences, we explore distinct but related ideas about how to be the church of Jesus Christ. As we've both noted before, we borrow from one another. Given time, love, and humility, better ways of being Jesus's church can make the leap from one communion to another. Maybe the real goal of ecumenism is sharing, and the possibility of union is just an illusion that gives us the courage and hope to keep going.
the other thing is the continual cycle of prayer the monastic orders and the cloistered contemplative movements
The relationship between monasticism and the reformation is a bit more complicated than is usually understood. There are Lutheran monks, although much fewer in proportion than in the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Luther's criticisms of monasticism focused on those aspects of the monastic movements at his time that he felt were coercive and/or exploitive. No one, not even Luther, felt that these were essential aspects of monasticism, not even of his time and place.
For myself, an occasional reader of Merton, I would probably read contemplative literature more if I knew it better.
I will suggest this -- if moving the process along requires monks (and I'm not saying it doesn't) -- then your communion is going to have to pull some of the load for us. The notion of the braid suggests that this must be so. Likewise, if female and/or married priests are required, e.g., for the insights that come from service in the office of word and sacrament, as lived out through family life, then our communion will have to carry some weight for you.
Peace
our daily prayers
the divine office
is the ongoing prayer
of israel
it is the memory of
revelation and all we
know of god in the drama of the world
it is the keeping alive of the story
and the stories
it is this immense
although humble train on the track
it keeps chuggin every day
the corruption luther saw in monasteries was the corruption that existed everywhere he just thought the monks should be held to a higher ideal by virtue of their commitments indeed all religious should be held to this ideal...i wonder what luther thought of the jesuits who were coming into the fore about that same time....anyway i'd like to trust that luther was mindful enough of human frailty to understand that communities are difficult propositions no matter how you set them up and christian communities are fraught with all the ills of humanity...if they are working well then the the processes of forgeveness adn reconciliation take hold....sometimes if they ar working badly then the process of vanity and delusion take hold....the insitence on the divine office more or less insures that the focus will remain...what cannot be doubted is that by being true tot he narrative nd traditions we inherit we are called into commmunity...and our identity derives from there
family life is considered a sacrament in catholic moral theology
alll kinda reason to hope
striving to understand perichoresis
j
the corruption luther saw in monasteries was the corruption that existed everywhere he just thought the monks should be held to a higher ideal by virtue of their commitments indeed all religious should be held to this ideal...
That was about half of his criticism. The other half came from the practice of encouraging novices to take vows of celebacy before puberty. Vows that many couldn't (or in any event didn't) keep, which lead to much scandal.
i wonder what luther thought of the jesuits who were coming into the fore about that same time....
Nothing very positive. The Jesuits were, and were intended to be, the shock troops of the counter-reformation.
anyway i'd like to trust that luther was mindful enough of human frailty to understand that communities are difficult propositions no matter how you set them up and christian communities are fraught with all the ills of humanity...
I think so, although there is no doubt that Bonhoeffer understood. I think you could read "The Life Together" and find little that you wouldn't approve of in this regard.
striving to understand perichoresis
A beautiful, if not particularly accessible idea. We discussed it in my diakonia class. I actually find that my intuition was helped by pictures I've seen of immiscible, incompressible fluids interpenetrating one another.
Actually, the Wikipedia article is better than you'd expect.
Post a Comment