The problem of theodicy - reconciling pain and suffering with belief in the Christian God - always seems to come up when discussing evolution & God with atheists (and some YECs as well for that matter). The problem people have is that evolution requires death, suffering through parasites, carnivores, micro-organisms etc., limited resources leading to starvation and also death through old age or organ failure. How could a loving God effectively set up his creation for such things?
There are no easy answers for the problem of suffering, however I think it is much easier to address the problem when agreeing with an evolutionary picture than any other. This is because evolution requires such things in order to operate. Without suffering we couldn't have life as we know it. A consequence of the good things in life is the bad - ying and the yang. This is in comparison to a more traditional Christian picture that finds itself having to justify every occasion of suffering using excuses from God punishing individuals through to the actions of demons. Furthermore traditional pictures have to try and explain problems such as death before "the fall" and the question as to whether only humans can suffer. For me the need for suffering because of evolution is a much simpler picture.
But this still may not answer the original objection - but why did God create suffering? Well firstly because he had to - one cannot imagine a biological world without suffering, but secondly, and almost as a side-effect, because it is through suffering that we actually find God. If everything in life happened without trouble we would get complacent and think we could cope on our own (ever wondered why belief in God is stronger in poorer nations?). Suffering forces us to respond. Without God that response is often pessimistic or negative, but with God we look to the eternal. A Christian attitude accepts the bad, is realistic about the situation, but looks for the good - a hope for the future. The Christian has a reason to always be positive because the Christian knows that life is more than just what we experience on earth. This is not to say that God callously creates suffering to try and prove himself, but rather that suffering is part of the biological innateness of humanity. God doesn't make suffering happen but he does help us to overcome it, and through seeking the positive we find personal healing and salvation.
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Saturday, 2 August 2008
3rd Way
I have recently been quite interested by the discussion emanating from Denis Alexander's excellent article entitled "Viva la evolution" on the third way website.
After a group of YECS decided to reply on mass CiS mobilised and responded on mass. It seems that a lot of different groups are gearing themselves up for next years 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth.
Along with the usual polemics surrounding this subject I was quite interested to note quite how loosely the term"Darwinism" was being used by everyone. Some (mostly YECS) equated it with materialism or naturalism, whilst those from a more scientific background equated it with evolution in general. Everyone seemed to overlook the technical usage of the word which equates to Darwin's specific beliefs which, along with evolution through decent, modification and natural selection, also contained ideas such as panspermia. Of course the phrase neo-Darwinism was then coined to refer to Mendelian genetics merged with natural selection, however even that is somewhat out of date, especially as recent results from the fields of epigenetics and RNAi seem to indicate some really quite interesting alternatives to simple gene based evolution.
This looseness of terminology unfortunately leads to confusion, and thus plays into the YECS hands. All of a sudden the normal (and exciting) development of evolutionary science is seen as undermining "Darwinism" (which of course it does) and thus somehow backing up the creationist arguments. I think it is time to put to bed the idea that Darwinism equates to evolution. Evolutionary theory is strong and developing. Darwin made a seminal contribution with his idea of natural selection, but science has now moved on rapidly. It is time people began to view Darwinism in the same way they view Newtonianism.
After a group of YECS decided to reply on mass CiS mobilised and responded on mass. It seems that a lot of different groups are gearing themselves up for next years 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth.
Along with the usual polemics surrounding this subject I was quite interested to note quite how loosely the term"Darwinism" was being used by everyone. Some (mostly YECS) equated it with materialism or naturalism, whilst those from a more scientific background equated it with evolution in general. Everyone seemed to overlook the technical usage of the word which equates to Darwin's specific beliefs which, along with evolution through decent, modification and natural selection, also contained ideas such as panspermia. Of course the phrase neo-Darwinism was then coined to refer to Mendelian genetics merged with natural selection, however even that is somewhat out of date, especially as recent results from the fields of epigenetics and RNAi seem to indicate some really quite interesting alternatives to simple gene based evolution.
This looseness of terminology unfortunately leads to confusion, and thus plays into the YECS hands. All of a sudden the normal (and exciting) development of evolutionary science is seen as undermining "Darwinism" (which of course it does) and thus somehow backing up the creationist arguments. I think it is time to put to bed the idea that Darwinism equates to evolution. Evolutionary theory is strong and developing. Darwin made a seminal contribution with his idea of natural selection, but science has now moved on rapidly. It is time people began to view Darwinism in the same way they view Newtonianism.
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
Evolution and Creation
I think when discussing this topic we need to distinguish exactly what is meant by the labels "creationist" and "evolutionist" as I really do not think that these words refer to mutually exclusive concepts.
1) Evolution(ist) is probably the easier of the two to understand, which in this context I take to mean something along the lines of "a theory that explains the origin of complex biological organisms from simpler organisms, through Darwins theory of natural selection acting in a non-teleological fashion upon genes". Perhaps what is important to notice is that this does NOT say anything about God, nor does it explain how the first "life" came about.
2) Creation(ist) has all sorts of loaded meanings, however in its simplest from merely means someone who believes that God created the universe/life/us. Using this definition being a creationist is not incompatible with accepting the mechanism of evolution for creation.
HOWEVER there are also three other defnitions of "Creationist" which are not compatible with evolutionary theory, namely 6-day or Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC) and Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC). What is interesting is that such movements are actually fairly modern reactions TO science rather than some form of religious orthodoxy. Granted prior to Darwin there was no alternative to direct supernatural causation as the mechanism for creation, however despite this need for the supernatural within Christian/European thinking much of the reason for the scientific revolution in Europe was actually due to Christianity teaching that a separating between God and nature (the book of life) was OK. Indeed the response to Darwin amongst theologians was not too different from the response he received from scientists - mixed reaction at first followed by almost complete acceptance within about 50 to 100 years. As such, far from representing some form of orthodoxy, YEC, OEC and IDC actually represent fairly modern UN-orthodox responses by Christians.
This historical background is helpful to see where the disagreement comes from as it has direct relevance to the two areas of contention regarding origins - namely the interpretation of evidence and the understanding of philosophical consequences. My experience is that the latter (the philosophical consequences) actually distort the former (the scientific evidence) so much that it is not actually worth arguing about the scientific evidence. Note I AM NOT saying the scientific evidence is not important, but rather that we need to examine our philosophical baggage before we can stand a chance of fairly understanding the science.
1) Evolution(ist) is probably the easier of the two to understand, which in this context I take to mean something along the lines of "a theory that explains the origin of complex biological organisms from simpler organisms, through Darwins theory of natural selection acting in a non-teleological fashion upon genes". Perhaps what is important to notice is that this does NOT say anything about God, nor does it explain how the first "life" came about.
2) Creation(ist) has all sorts of loaded meanings, however in its simplest from merely means someone who believes that God created the universe/life/us. Using this definition being a creationist is not incompatible with accepting the mechanism of evolution for creation.
HOWEVER there are also three other defnitions of "Creationist" which are not compatible with evolutionary theory, namely 6-day or Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC) and Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC). What is interesting is that such movements are actually fairly modern reactions TO science rather than some form of religious orthodoxy. Granted prior to Darwin there was no alternative to direct supernatural causation as the mechanism for creation, however despite this need for the supernatural within Christian/European thinking much of the reason for the scientific revolution in Europe was actually due to Christianity teaching that a separating between God and nature (the book of life) was OK. Indeed the response to Darwin amongst theologians was not too different from the response he received from scientists - mixed reaction at first followed by almost complete acceptance within about 50 to 100 years. As such, far from representing some form of orthodoxy, YEC, OEC and IDC actually represent fairly modern UN-orthodox responses by Christians.
This historical background is helpful to see where the disagreement comes from as it has direct relevance to the two areas of contention regarding origins - namely the interpretation of evidence and the understanding of philosophical consequences. My experience is that the latter (the philosophical consequences) actually distort the former (the scientific evidence) so much that it is not actually worth arguing about the scientific evidence. Note I AM NOT saying the scientific evidence is not important, but rather that we need to examine our philosophical baggage before we can stand a chance of fairly understanding the science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)