Faith purifies reason...
What I Think About EvolutionThe piece is continued here. LP NOTE: Tom ferreted out this article in his daily perusal of the New York Times. Reading it I have to admit that I had to comb through several paragraphs of gobbledygook to find the essence of Sen. Brownback's point, which is:
By SAM BROWNBACK, New York Times
Washington
IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic 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 earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates 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 bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.
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 creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction 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 contradiction 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 complementary: they deal with very different questions, 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 answer every question. Faith seeks to purify 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. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.
If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I 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 exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.Journalists and politicians communicate in different ways. Journalists are taught to write in the "inverse pyramid" style — that is, frontload the primary information in the story, leaving the less important stuff till the end.
If this article is any indication, it would seem that politicians write in the "diamond" style — that is, state your major point somewhere in the middle, between a beginning and end that are intended on the one hand to obfuscate while on the other appeal to differing constituencies. We can also call this the "neopolitan ice cream" style of writing — equal amounts of vanilla, strawberry and chocolate so as to give the broadest range of tastes at least something they'll like.
Obviously, the senator was caught off-guard by the "Do you believe in evolution?" question, which was no doubt cleverly intended to put the leading GOP candidates into a no-win situation: Say "yes" and you turn off the religious fundamentalists in the party; say "no" and you turn off the rational thinkers in the country, who (thank God!) are still in the majority. Perhaps only Ron Paul could have won on this one.
Brownback's handlers I'm sure realized the trickiness of the question right away, which is what led to Brownback's measured response in the Times.
Whether this clarification will help or hurt his chances is anyone's guess. Regardless of political outcome, what this whole discussion of God and evolution does indicate is how far our politicians have gone to kowtow to an element of our society that ironically wants to turn the U.S. into an Iranian-style theocracy.
While Brownback is no Almadinejad, he may be as close as an American equivalent thereto as we have. Except, of course, to the man who currently inhabits the White House, whose actions in the next few years will have far more effect on Brownback's chances of becoming president than any apologia in the New York Times.
Stay tuned, as the democracy vs. theocracy debate won't end soon....
Labels: Brownback, evolution, GOP, Republican Party
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
This is sad for a number of reasons.
When a presidential candidate writes an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, it should be on a critical issue. I checked NYT history and this is the first Sam Brownback piece. Having been in Congress since 1995 and considering all the issues from Clinton’s impeachment to Iraq, it’s sad that Brownback selects this topic. Obviously, as LP points out in his NOTE, Brownback is getting “heat” from certain circles and feels the need to defend his judgment. If he was not running for President and was asked this same question, would he – or the NYT – bother with an OpEd piece.
It’s sad that this topic is even being discussed in a Presidential campaign. The fact that MSNBC felt this issue was worthy of even a showing of hands indicates the failure of Chris Matthews and “debate” format. The responses of this and other questions does not tell voters about how a candidate would perform as President but only gives fodder to bloggers … both on the Pro-Creationism side and Con-Creationism. I have to agree with Newt Gingrich that voters would be better served with a series of weekly “discussions” where only one subject is discussed … and if any candidates suggests that the subject is Evolution versus Creationism no “intelligent” voter should cast their ballot form that candidate.
It’s sad that he has a closed mind on this subject. Brownback writes : “Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.” I can accept his opinion … but it is wrong to classify anyone who does not share his opinion as supporting atheistic theology.”
This is the first I have heard of Sam Brownback. Guess I better get in the primary game. I shall have to evolve my political sensibilities.
I find it ironic that 94% of people on this planet seem to need the comfort of a creator-deity to explain who we are. This is in direct contrast to the sort of arrogance we often display in our daily dealings with each other, especially on a political level. First we claim that our spirituality and sense of awe and wonder are derived from God, but how quick we are to take credit for any crappy little thing we achieve in daily living. Why can we not simply ascribe to the ideology that we have evolved spiritually as a natural process of self-discovery through the efforts of science and reason? Why give credit to that which exists simply by dumb faith? We can be great and we can be humble. In this vastly incomprehensible and astronomically gigantic Universe, we are but dust on dust. The majesty of it all is poetic and brilliant and worth comprehending. The work to achieve it is long and difficult but not without possibility. And even if it is, do we stop breathing because we will not live forever? The end is coming, we will die, we can never "get it" all. Should we just die? The only thing I have faith in is that in some time, we will come to understand the essence and nature of the evolved human and live like we are evolving to live-in peace with each other and in harmony with nature. There are many civilizations on earth that have aspired to this and nearly achieved it within their ranks. Whether it took faith in God or not is irrelevant as the natural progression of humans will be the same with it or without it. That is if our arrogance doesn’t destroy us first. Sound familiar?
God may have been a good idea once, but we have outlived it and out grown it through pure knowledge. The incite is to know thyself and understand the motives that move you. Don’t give into yourself every paltry emotion that suffuses your senses. They were good for survival once but can be generally discarded for the most part, not entirely. Until our sociological development catches up with our technological evolution, we will have to keep ourselves in check a bit longer. Sure, there will be more suffering at the hands of this, but that is evolution for you. Be patient and we will arrive. Maybe in 10,000 years.
Post a Comment
<< Home