Man Vs. God

kmguru

Staff member
excerpts:

Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making. No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.

But Darwin may have done religion—and God—a favor by revealing a flaw in modern Western faith. Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped—even primitive. In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart.

But by the end of the 17th century, instead of looking through the symbol to "the God beyond God," Christians were transforming it into hard fact. Sir Isaac Newton had claimed that his cosmic system proved beyond doubt the existence of an intelligent, omniscient and omnipotent creator, who was obviously "very well skilled in Mechanicks and Geometry." Enthralled by the prospect of such cast-iron certainty, churchmen started to develop a scientifically-based theology that eventually made Newton's Mechanick and, later, William Paley's Intelligent Designer essential to Western Christianity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html
 
The more they depend on science, the more they lend legitimacy to the places where science shows religion to be incorrect. Unfortunately, they ignore those aspects of science.
 
excerpts:

Richard Dawkins has been right all along,
That be kind of funny. As i find RD off the mark quite often.

of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived.

Darwin, offered data for any to observe the idea of transmutation. The term "evolution" was not even used in Darwin's book. The concept of life, 'evolving' may seem as a cause of a schism type divide but to use the ontological approach to address the many metaphors, then the combining of many terms can be seen.

ie... in Genesis the idea of the 'tree of life' shares how life can be rooted to the source (God; per se). When Darwin did include his rendition (drawing) of a 'tree of life.' (approaching a causality)

It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making. No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.

Now to go over that idea above, change GOD to being Mother Nature (existence itself; all mass, energy, time)

then we are 'its' creations, that have evolved over time, (that are describing 'itself')

But Darwin may have done religion—and God—a favor by revealing a flaw in modern Western faith.

'revealing'!!!! (basically by just being honest and reporting what he observed and provided evidence............ anyone can do the same thing)

Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped—even primitive.

i agree..... everyone knows mother nature provides and that we all came from the earth and will go back.

Mom (mother nature) is dad; to me! And it is primitive to not be honest about that very FACT!

In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol

that is a real deep claim but true. Meaning; some do not really know what that means as the rest of your sentences shares that but God is basically rendered or described as a process between the 3 (mass,energy,time).....

none can hold god, but to describe the 'process' names god.

If existence only operates ONE way; then the math is the 'name' to know.

that is where i get that STATEMENT.............. it reflects GOD as being existence itself, and 'we the people' just describing him (it)

which can be observed in the 'evolution of knowledge'

as the pinnacle is the 'name to know' (the transistion of mass, energy and time; almost like what Einstein provided with E=mc2........ (but he missed something))

But by the end of the 17th century, instead of looking through the symbol to "the God beyond God," Christians were transforming it into hard fact.
perhaps they tried but a few do not take the 'last word' from church (leaders who claim to have the final say)


Sir Isaac Newton had claimed that his cosmic system proved beyond doubt the existence of an intelligent, omniscient and omnipotent creator, who was obviously "very well skilled in Mechanicks and Geometry." Enthralled by the prospect of such cast-iron certainty, churchmen started to develop a scientifically-based theology that eventually made Newton's Mechanick and, later, William Paley's Intelligent Designer essential to Western Christianity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html

interesting; but newton was like galileo and even darwin; they knew the beliefs were off and conveyed material and theory to physical evidence. (they were trying to maintain the inegrity of truth (science) while keeping the faith, to the best of their abilities)
 
Back
Top