Thank God For Evolution

[Upchurch]

Mrs. Upchurch and I went to a lecture last night given by Michael Dowd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dowd), a reformed young earth biblical literalist. He was promoting his new book, Thank God For Evolution (http://thankgodforevolution.com/). (If you are interested, he gives it away for free as a PDF on the website.)

Going in, I assumed that he was going to take either a Deist or a "intelligently guided evolution" approach, but he really didn't. I'm still digesting what he talked about, but what I took away from it is that he views science, as is and without any supernatural aspect, as miraculous in itself and that it is the responsibility of religion to change in order to accept the broader understanding that science provides and give meaning to it.

There were a few aspects of what he said that I thought were a little iffy, but I think that may have either been my misunderstanding or an ambiguous word usage on his part. All in all, I thought it was an interesting approach to what the purpose of religion ought to be in the modern world.

Anyway, I bought his book (because I like signed copies of things) and The Moral Animal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Animal). I didn't get it, but he also had one of Michael Shermer's books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Good_and_Evil).

[Beerina]

Like a flat earth, or a geocentric universe, or god sending lightning bolts and floods, religion adapts to scientific truth, as it must (and usually trying to pretend it was that way all along.) The progress is slow by the length of single human lives, but it marches onward.

[Upchurch]

Like a flat earth, or a geocentric universe, or god sending lightning bolts and floods, religion adapts to scientific truth, as it must (and usually trying to pretend it was that way all along.) The progress is slow by the length of single human lives, but it marches onward.
Yes, but I believe he was advocating a faster, more proactive change rather than a reluctant "let's apologize to Galileo 400 years after the fact" kind of change.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, but I believe he was advocating a faster, more proactive change rather than a reluctant "let's apologize to Galileo 400 years after the fact" kind of change.

In your opinion does he seem to be advocating a sort of "Spinoza's god" approach?

[ImaginalDisc]

This guy's understanding of Evolution is, if his website is any indication, spot on.

But, he considers Evolution to be a cornerstone of his Christian faith? Huh? I'm trying to make sense of this. What did you get out of it, Upchurch?

[Upchurch]

In your opinion does he seem to be advocating a sort of "Spinoza's god" approach?
Certainly something similar, although definitely more current.


But, he considers Evolution to be a cornerstone of his Christian faith? Huh?
er... sorta?

I guess the way he really explained it is that science is a description of underlying reality. He described religions as a metaphorical understanding and/or interpretation of that underlying reality as seen through a specific society's perspective.

So, when he is saying that Evolution is a cornerstone of his Christian faith, I guess he is saying that the greater objective understanding of reality that Evolution (and science in general) provides allows him to develop his understanding of the meaning of reality as seen through his Christian perspective.


I'm trying to make sense of this. What did you get out of it, Upchurch?
I'm not exactly sure, yet. That is part of the reason I started the thread, to kind of flesh it out in my own head.

I have to say that I think I do like the conceptual framework he has presented that, I think, would allow science and religion to be complementary to one another rather than being in competition. I also like the idea that religions need not be seen as competing ideas between each other but rather different understandings of the same thing from different perspectives.

It satisfies both the atheist physicist and the Unitarian Universalist in me.


There was one part that bothered me in his talk and when I asked him about it he admitted that he really didn't have an answer for me. ...but Mrs. Upchurch just called so I'll have to finish that thought later.

[ImaginalDisc]

I have to say that I think I do like the conceptual framework he has presented that, I think, would allow science and religion to be complementary to one another rather than being in competition. I also like the idea that religions need not be seen as competing ideas between each other but rather different understandings of the same thing from different perspectives.

It satisfies both the atheist physicist and the Unitarian Universalist in me.


There was one part that bothered me in his talk and when I asked him about it he admitted that he really didn't have an answer for me. ...but Mrs. Upchurch just called so I'll have to finish that thought later.

That's what confuses me. At what point does religion enter into the picture when one's understanding of the world is based on sound science?


ETA: Copy/Pasting from his site is a pain. It took me a second. Here's a section of the FAQ's.


In your book you describe how a sacred view of evolution “un-trivializes God” and “REALizes religion.” Can you say a few words about how this happens?

Certainly. That a sacred view of evolution “untrivializes God” and that it “REALizes religion” are two of the central claims I make in Thank God for Evolution! Namely, I contend that an inspiring view of cosmic, biological, and human history redeems God talk and REALizes religious abstractions.
Let me explain: I maintain that non-evolutionary views of God are by their very nature unsubstantial and inconsequential. The fact that Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, was an instant bestseller is compelling evidence of this. No one would write a book (or at least no one would buy one) called, The Life Delusion, or The Universe Delusion. Why? Because ‘Life’ and ‘the Universe’ are not trivial concepts—they are undeniably real. “Do you believe in water?” is an absurd question precisely because water is real, not imaginary. The truth is that it doesn’t matter whether you ‘believe in’ water or not. The demonstrable fact is that we are each 50-70% water. Without water we wouldn’t exist, whether we believe in it or not. In the words of Phillip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

An evolutionary understanding of God goes beyond belief or nonbelief. Who can deny that there is such a thing as ‘the Whole of Reality, measurable and non-measurable’ and that “God” is a legitimate proper name for this Ulitmacy? The transparency of this point is, I think, one of the main reasons why the ‘creatheistic’ perspective Connie and I present resonates with such a broad audience, and why, I believe, we will see an evolutionary understanding of the divine replace flat-earth understandings all over the world in the coming decades.

When I say that evolution ‘REALizes religion’ what I mean is that a sacred view of deep-time takes what many people, religious and nonreligious alike, think of as otherworldly abstractions and shows how they can actually be experienced as REAL, for everybody, everywhere, at all times. Throughout Thank God for Evolution!, I take many of the core doctrines central to Christianity—sin, salvation, the kingdom of God, heaven and hell, Jesus as God's way, truth, and life, —and show how each of these can be understood in a REALized—that is, an undeniably this-world realistic—way.

Ironically, evolution gives us a more intimate and personal relationship with God because God is no longer far off, unnatural, and impotent. And it gives us a way of thinking about religion that helps us understand how and why religions are different, and how we can cooperate across ethnic and religious differences to co-create a thriving world together. Both of these are, to my mind, really Good News.

What is his god? I don't get it.

[Upchurch]

That's what confuses me. At what point does religion enter into the picture when one's understanding of the world is based on sound science?He differentiates having facts (science) and having meaning (religion).


What is his god? I don't get it.
Spinoza's god, bear bones reality, the whole of everything. Something like that.


There was one part that bothered me in his talk and when I asked him about it he admitted that he really didn't have an answer for me. ...but Mrs. Upchurch just called so I'll have to finish that thought later.
Okay, so the part that bothered me.

He differentiated between private and public revelation. Private revelation is what Moses had on Mount Sinai when he got the ten commandments. He alone could experience and you can either believe it or not. Public revelation is what Einstein had when he figured out Relativity. You can go over his calculations and determine if he's right or not.

The problem I had was that he was relating similar instances of public revelation to private revelation. My problem with it is that all the examples he had, the private revelation pre-dated the public revelation. That could mean one of two things: either he was suggesting that there was some mechanism by which the earlier private revelation had happened upon the truth OR he was retroactively manipulating the meaning of the earlier private revelation to fit with what is currently know via public revelation.

Ultimately, I think he was purposefully doing the latter, not to give some sort of validity to the older revelations that they did not deserve, but as an object lesson of the potential relationship between the two using well known examples. Still, I think it is a weak point in his argument.

[Phil]

In my view, only the religious need religion and science to be complementary. The idea seems an act of desperation by believers who have begun to see things clearly, but who are still so emotionally invested in their religious beliefs, they cannot yet let go completely.

Seems Dowd says facts = science and meaning = religion. But where science is a domain solely of facts, meaning is not a domain solely of religion.

Science and religion are not opposite, and they are not complementary.

[quixotecoyote]

Meaning is more the realm of philosophy, I thought.

[TX50]

In my view, only the religious need religion and science to be complementary. The idea seems an act of desperation by believers who have begun to see things clearly, but who are still so emotionally invested in their religious beliefs, they cannot yet let go completely.

Seems Dowd says facts = science and meaning = religion. But where science is a domain solely of facts, meaning is not a domain solely of religion.

Science and religion are not opposite, and they are not complementary.

I'd say that's bang on! Well said.

[Upchurch]

Meaning is more the realm of philosophy, I thought.
Religion is a subset of philosophy.


Seems Dowd says facts = science and meaning = religion.
That was mostly my paraphrasing.


But where science is a domain solely of facts, meaning is not a domain solely of religion.
I had to read that a couple of times. You switched the relationships in your comparison there.

Science is a domain of facts (but also hypothesis and some interpretation, like in the quantum scale), but facts are not a domain solely of science. They are also found in things like law.

Religion is (or can be) a domain of meaning, morality and understanding.


Science and religion are not opposite,
I think that is what Dowd was trying to say. :confused:


and they are not complementary.
Could they be?

[Phil]

. . . Science is a domain of facts (but also hypothesis and some interpretation, like in the quantum scale), but facts are not a domain solely of science. They are also found in things like law. . . .


Yes, I just didn't want my flyby reply to become more than that. I agree with you on this point. I apologize if my click and run approach confused anyone.


. . . Religion is (or can be) a domain of meaning, morality and understanding. . . .


Agreed. It can be a domain of meaning, but it is not the only one. Where science (generally speaking) is necessary to find facts and achieve understanding) religion is not necessary to achieve meaning.

In fact, it may be completely useless to many people; it is to me.

But the implication by Dowd is that meaning is the saving grace that keeps religion viable in the face of scientific discovery. And that's just not true.


. . . Could they be [complementary]?


For the non-thinking believer, they are completely at odds.

For the religious person who has begun to think, but who can't find meaning without his or her beliefs, they have to be complementary.

For those of us who find meaning elsewhere, they are not even apples and oranges. They are apples and . . . Thursday.

[ImaginalDisc]

Spinoza's god, bear bones reality, the whole of everything. Something like that.

How is Evangelism relevant to Spinza's god?