In the following quote the author outlines a number of provocative possibilities for a "believer" to develop a conception of reality that is grounded in an internally consistent and intellectually honest world view combining the essentials of scientific theory with a fundamental belief in the Divine. I especially enjoyed his use of scientific illustrations to create such strikingly unique parallels with a belief in a "Higher Power"... this line of thinking parallels a conversation between Jana and I about the things she is learning in her Chemistry class this summer...
"The fact that nobody’s actually seen an electron, and that trying to imagine one ties our minds in knots, has led some physicists and philosophers of science to wonder whether it’s even accurate to say that electrons do exist. You could say that with electrons, as with God, there are believers and there are skeptics.
The believers believe there’s something out there—some “thing” in some sense of the word “thing”—that corresponds to the word “electron”; and that, though the best we can do is conceive of this “thing” imperfectly, even misleadingly, conceiving of it that way makes more sense than not conceiving of it at all. They believe in electrons while professing their inability to really “know” what an electron is. You might say they believe in electrons even while lacking proof that electrons per se exist.
Many of these physicists, while holding that imperfectly conceiving subatomic reality is a valid form of knowledge, wouldn’t approve if you tried to perform a similar maneuver in a theological context. If you said you believe in God, even while acknowledging that you have no clear idea what God is—and that you can’t even really prove God per se exists—they would say your belief has no foundation.
Yet what exactly is the difference between the logic of their belief in electrons and the logic of a belief in God? They perceive patterns in the physical world—such as the behavior of electricity—and posit a source of these patterns and call that source the “electron.” A believer in God perceives patterns in the moral world (or, at least, moral patterns in the physical world) and posits a source of these patterns and calls the source “God.” “God” is that unknown thing that is the source of the moral order, the reason there is a moral dimension to life on Earth and a moral direction to time on Earth; “God” is responsible for the fact that life is sentient, capable of good and bad feelings, and hence morally significant; “God” is responsible for the evolutionary system that placed highly sentient life on a trajectory toward the good, or at least toward tests that offered the opportunity and incentive to realize the good; in the process “God” gave each of us a moral axis around which to organize our lives, should we choose to.
Being human, we will always conceive of the source of this moral order in misleadingly crude ways, but then again you could say the same thing about conceiving electrons. So you’ll do with the source of the moral order what physicists do with a subatomic source of the physical order, such as an electron—try to think about it the best you can, and fail. This, at least, is one modern, scientifically informed argument that could be deployed by the believer in God."
(The Evolution of God by Robert Wright)
- S.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Getting a Brain for the Postmodern Straw Man...
It has been a while since I posted a blog... The following post was written as a response in the comment section of a recent post on author Peter Rollins' blog. Peter Rollins' Blog
I appreciate the provocative and unapologetically confrontational nature of Peter’s original post! As with others who replied, I immediately recognized the clearest example of who who the author was referring to in his critique of preachers who promote the idea of “a cage-fighting, bodybuilding Jesus” [ie. Mark Driscoll, whose podcast I enjoy despite significant doctrinal and ideological disagreement]…
Rollins direct refutation of such poorly crafted theological posturing is a beautiful thing and I hope we can see more of it in the future. I've run across too many examples in recent years of neo-Reformed Piper disciples spreading some truly toxic rhetoric to characterize the ideas of people like Peter Rollins, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell [ex. Driscoll's unapologetic use of critical hyperbole in generalizing that McLaren's writings that are both heretical and “destructive to the church.”] I have been waiting for a long time for the the wrongly accused (or perhaps a few of their capable surrogates) to just the type of rebuttal Rollins gave in his blog to push back against the rampant straw man characterizations of postmodern and emergent theological ideas often being peddled in particular corners of the church (ex. Why We’re Not Emergent by DeYoung & Cluck and Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church by D.A. Carson are some of the worst examples I've run across in recent years].
More of us must be willing to clearly articulate and defend genuine articulations of postmodern/emergent theology compared with the misrepresentations of our ideas by some in the conservative/evangelical/Reformed/fundamentalist camp that has risen up in recent years. The common progressive tendency is to search for the good in an opponent’s arguments and attempt to build a consensus on whatever points of agreement can be found. Unfortunately, the argument with Driscoll and the like are rarely made in good faith and often shift abruptly to a false categorization or misrepresentation of the true nature of the disagreement.
Can anyone actually point to a single example of even the most passionate emergent progressive who would actually describe their beliefs to include the theological caricature of Jesus of Nazareth bearing the slightest resemblance to the effete embarrassment Driscoll usually describes as the limp-wrist, feminine postmodern Jesus with "product in his hair? NO! This is a make-believe sketch Driscoll is projecting upon emergent/postmodern theology that has been created and repeated ad nauseum, despite bearing ZERO resemblance to any objective reality among REAL emergent/postmodern believers. It’s long past the time for more people to characterize such arguments as the misrepresentative mistakes they truly are.
Perhaps we can finally respond with a “Great Rebuttal” to this wave of false witnesses. I've got my finger's crossed!
- S.
I appreciate the provocative and unapologetically confrontational nature of Peter’s original post! As with others who replied, I immediately recognized the clearest example of who who the author was referring to in his critique of preachers who promote the idea of “a cage-fighting, bodybuilding Jesus” [ie. Mark Driscoll, whose podcast I enjoy despite significant doctrinal and ideological disagreement]…
Rollins direct refutation of such poorly crafted theological posturing is a beautiful thing and I hope we can see more of it in the future. I've run across too many examples in recent years of neo-Reformed Piper disciples spreading some truly toxic rhetoric to characterize the ideas of people like Peter Rollins, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell [ex. Driscoll's unapologetic use of critical hyperbole in generalizing that McLaren's writings that are both heretical and “destructive to the church.”] I have been waiting for a long time for the the wrongly accused (or perhaps a few of their capable surrogates) to just the type of rebuttal Rollins gave in his blog to push back against the rampant straw man characterizations of postmodern and emergent theological ideas often being peddled in particular corners of the church (ex. Why We’re Not Emergent by DeYoung & Cluck and Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church by D.A. Carson are some of the worst examples I've run across in recent years].
More of us must be willing to clearly articulate and defend genuine articulations of postmodern/emergent theology compared with the misrepresentations of our ideas by some in the conservative/evangelical/Reformed/fundamentalist camp that has risen up in recent years. The common progressive tendency is to search for the good in an opponent’s arguments and attempt to build a consensus on whatever points of agreement can be found. Unfortunately, the argument with Driscoll and the like are rarely made in good faith and often shift abruptly to a false categorization or misrepresentation of the true nature of the disagreement.
Can anyone actually point to a single example of even the most passionate emergent progressive who would actually describe their beliefs to include the theological caricature of Jesus of Nazareth bearing the slightest resemblance to the effete embarrassment Driscoll usually describes as the limp-wrist, feminine postmodern Jesus with "product in his hair? NO! This is a make-believe sketch Driscoll is projecting upon emergent/postmodern theology that has been created and repeated ad nauseum, despite bearing ZERO resemblance to any objective reality among REAL emergent/postmodern believers. It’s long past the time for more people to characterize such arguments as the misrepresentative mistakes they truly are.
Perhaps we can finally respond with a “Great Rebuttal” to this wave of false witnesses. I've got my finger's crossed!
- S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)