Spring Break
Gravity: The middle ground between science and religion
Brett Haymaker
Issue date: 3/9/07 Section: Ed-Op
In high school, I attempted to formulate a theory mending evolution and creationism. I failed miserably. I researched evolution tirelessly, went to Bible study, and dredged through dribbling science journals and long-winded evangelist speeches. To be fair, however, I was not equipped with the tools to achieve this aim so soon. Although my idea was a good one and one I still wanted to achieve, I did not have the expressive equipment to handle this task just yet. Now I come to you to try to achieve it yet again in lieu of the recent publications in The Triangle on this topic.
One often hears, when attending Bible studies, people denouncing evolution, and praising an "intelligent creator" for all that we see on Earth and in the universe, that it is all too beautiful and complex for it not to have a creator.
In response to hearing "a creator," scientists respond as they expectedly would, and denounce it as a blabbering idiocracy. A mental fallacy. However, both sides are correct, except the argument is found within semantics. It boils down to a key error on both sides of the evolution-creationism debate: Each stance completely fills the space for being "correct."
When a religious figure, let's call him Robert, states that God created the universe and created man, he truly believes that God is a being and intended to create the universe. That God is a being that thinks, feels and responds to whatever we, humans, do on Earth.
Of course, this is the same when looking at a scientist; we'll call her Sheila. When Sheila interprets the word God, she too sees it as a supernatural, all-powerful being that intended to create life and the universe. And this is why Sheila disagrees with creationists.
I am by no means saying that all scientists aren't religious. Just bear with me and my generated examples.
Both parties accept that God is a being, an object, a creator and a supernatural creature. This is where our semantics hold us back; when we refer to God as a creator, we instantly think of a person building a house or a garden, a being that has intentions behind their actions. But this semantic error is key in understanding what God truly is. Once we do that, we will truly blend the black and white lines of evolution and creationism, and create the gray universe that pervades human experience and perception.
One often hears, when attending Bible studies, people denouncing evolution, and praising an "intelligent creator" for all that we see on Earth and in the universe, that it is all too beautiful and complex for it not to have a creator.
In response to hearing "a creator," scientists respond as they expectedly would, and denounce it as a blabbering idiocracy. A mental fallacy. However, both sides are correct, except the argument is found within semantics. It boils down to a key error on both sides of the evolution-creationism debate: Each stance completely fills the space for being "correct."
When a religious figure, let's call him Robert, states that God created the universe and created man, he truly believes that God is a being and intended to create the universe. That God is a being that thinks, feels and responds to whatever we, humans, do on Earth.
Of course, this is the same when looking at a scientist; we'll call her Sheila. When Sheila interprets the word God, she too sees it as a supernatural, all-powerful being that intended to create life and the universe. And this is why Sheila disagrees with creationists.
I am by no means saying that all scientists aren't religious. Just bear with me and my generated examples.
Both parties accept that God is a being, an object, a creator and a supernatural creature. This is where our semantics hold us back; when we refer to God as a creator, we instantly think of a person building a house or a garden, a being that has intentions behind their actions. But this semantic error is key in understanding what God truly is. Once we do that, we will truly blend the black and white lines of evolution and creationism, and create the gray universe that pervades human experience and perception.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 6
Joseph Ulicki
posted 3/11/07 @ 7:30 AM EST
Brett,
In your article you wrote:
"Poets and philosophers ..., they are all reliant upon a false assumption, one that has refused to be challenged for far too long: the assumption that God cares. (Continued…)
JoeU
Joseph Ulicki
posted 3/11/07 @ 7:37 AM EST
Brett,
In your article you wrote:
"Poets and philosophers ..., they are all reliant upon a false assumption, one that has refused to be challenged for far too long: the assumption that God cares. (Continued…)
Gary L. Herstein
posted 3/13/07 @ 4:30 PM EST
Brett,
You might be interested in researching the ideas behind "Process Theology." John Cobb has a pretty good "introduction" available (searching on those terms at, say, Amazon or B&N should pull it up. (Continued…)
Ben Simmons
posted 3/25/07 @ 11:47 PM EST
Scientists try to explain things in a way that allows them to make accurate predictions. "God is everywhere" explains exactly nothing. That is why god and science are incompatible. (Continued…)
Sic
posted 3/26/09 @ 2:54 AM EST
Atheist here - to get that out of the way.
Interesting read. So you're really a Deist with slight Buddhist tendencies and you propose this type of god to be a bridge between religion and science? The middle ground?
While not a unique concept, it's a good place to begin weaning humanity off the god dependency, but it's hardly a middle ground or bridge. (Continued…)
Post a Comment