|
jimtzu
|
 |
« on: June 05, 2007, 10:58:24 PM » |
|
came across both of these today and they seemed to reflect on each other. the first is a Sam Brownback commentary and the second was posted by F. Vissar on wilber watch
In our
soundbite political culture, it is unreal¬istic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves.
So i suppose I should not have been surprised when, in the first Republican presi¬dential debate, the candi¬dates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a hit more detail. The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and cre¬ationism does a disservice to the complexity of the inter¬action between science, faith and reason.
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contra¬diction between the two.
The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith
are complemen¬tary: They deal with very different question5~ but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
people of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot an¬swer every ques¬tion.
Faith seeks to puri¬fy reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. The question of evolution
goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to small changes over time within a species l am happy to say as I have in the past, that i believe it to be true. If. on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclu¬sively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding jntelligence, then I reject it. The most passionate ad¬vocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included
— reject arguments for evo¬lution that dismiss the possi¬bility of divine causality.
~1timately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a spe¬cies.
Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins~ but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I op¬pose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion.
Man was not an accident and reflects an image and like¬ness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evo-lutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theo¬ries that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an athe¬istic theology posing as sci¬ence
Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.
now here's the Vissar post:
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Eros or Oops?
On the first page of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality Wilber sets the stage for what is to come by comparing his philosophy to the prevailing scientific outlook.
To Schelling's burning question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?," there have always been two general answers. The first might be called the philosophy of "oops." The universe just occurs, there is nothing behind it, it's all ultimately accidental or random, it just is, it just happens--oops! The philosophy of oops, no matter how sophisticated and adult it may on occasion appear--its modern names and numbers are legion, from positivism, to scientific materialism, to linguistic analysis to historical materialism, from naturalism to empiricism--always comes down to the same basic answer, "Don't ask."
On wonders, isn't the very nature of science to continue to ask and investigate how things have happened and evolved? Wilber continues:
The question itself (Why is anything at all happening? Why am I here?)--the question itself is said to be confused, pathological, nonsensical, or infantile. To stop asking such a silly or confused question is, they all maintain, the mark of maturity, the sign of growing up in this cosmos. I don't think so. I think the "answer" these "modern and mature" disciplines give--namely oops! (and therefore "Don't ask!")--is about as infantile a response as the human condition could possibly offer.
Or, is science just saying that it is fine to ask such questions, but that it is not within the competence of science to answer them? Note the strong emotional tone of Wilber's comparison of the two viewpoints. Meyerhoff's psychological analysis of this key passage is illuminating.
Wilber continues:
The other broad answer that has been tendered is that something else is going on: behind the happenstance drama is a deeper or higher or wider pattern, or order, or intelligence.... Something else is going on, something quite other than oops…. This book is about all of that "something other than oops.
Throughout his subsequent works, Wilber will refer to that mysterious force that turns atoms into molecules, molecules into cells and cells into organism as Eros. For example, in Integral Spirituality, giving his current take on neo-Darwinian evolution (and Intelligent Design), Wilber writes:
That drive—Eros by any other name—seems a perfectly realistic conclusion, given the facts of evolution as we understand them. Let's just say there is plenty of room for a Kosmos of Eros.
But does Wilber really understand the facts of evolution? First read Lane, "Wilber and the Misunderstanding of Evolution", again Lane,"Wilber on Evolution Revisited", Chamberlain, "Wilber on Evolution" and Falk, "The Age of Wilberius".
Isn't the proposition of a Kosmic force which magically accomplishes everthything that asks for explanation, as much, if not more, a philosophy of Oops? Of not asking and investigating further? I believe the answer to this question determines one's outlook on life.
As Richard Dawkins has reminded his audience on many public occasions when science and religion are compared, and religious objections to the coldness of science were raised, the question to ask is not "Does it appeal to me?" or "Is it comforting?" but "Is it true?"
|
Recent posts
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM