Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Darwin's God Discussion 4: Chapters 8-9
To round out the book, Miller uses the final 2 chapters to discuss how he reconciles his scientific understanding of the material universe with his understanding of God according to the traditional view held by the great western monotheistic religions, a God that created us, loves us, and intervenes in our lives. He first points to the definitive limits to our capacity to understand the universe using science, there is no way we will ever be capable of knowing anything about the universe prior to the moment of it's conception at the Big Bang (pg. 225). So, God may be the generator behind such an event. He then points to the fact that the constants that exist in the universe (such as gravity) are set at just the right values to allow for the existence and evolution of life (pg. 228), giving the appearance that they've been chosen with intention for such a purpose. He also reminds us of the indeterminate behavior of matter itself which ultimately allows room for a God to work in subtle ways that are undetectable to us (pg. 233). He discusses how miracles, by definition are beyond scientific understanting. For believers, miracles (i.e., resurrection, virgin birth) point to a spiritual reality that makes sense religiously but not scientifically. Thus, a loving God who intervenes in the affairs of the world could do so without us being capable of understanding His means for doing so. This conception of God not only allows for Miller's understanding of the scientific data, but it also affirms his belief that God has endowed us with free will to choose our own attitudes and behaviors.
Miller asserts that true knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason. Through reason we can scientifically understand God's creation to a great extent, but science is incapable of assigning meaning and purpose to the universe it explores. Additionally, while evolution can explain our basic drives and desires, we look to our faith to understand the proper way to act in response to our drives and desires. In saying all of this, he is simply repeating the theme that he has been asserting throughout the whole book; acceptance of evolution is not incompatible with deep and meaningful faith in a personal and loving God. If a person's reason leads them to accept the evidence supporting evolution, they need not abandon their faith, and their faith may even be affirmed by their understanding of natural history.
Miller's integration of his faith and scientific understanding provide a concrete point at which we can now discuss whether or not his conception of God is satisfying to our sensibilities. I also think that generally speaking I'd be interested to discuss our thoughts about the book; did it provide any great insights? Does the book make any assertions that we fundamentally disagree with? As always, I'll put my actual 'discussion' thoughts in the comments section for this post, please do the same with your own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As I stated in earlier comments, I do accept the evidence supporting evolution. I think that Miller does a good job discussing how evolution can be consistent with deep and meaningful faith. I don't see any reason to presume that I know the means by which God interacts with His creation, obviously the way that God works is going to be beyond my capacity to completely understand. Science is capable of explaining a lot about the material universe, and when the evidence for something is as strong as it is for evolution, I accept it. However, this is no different than me accepting various other scientific facts that have at one point or another seemed to challenge theology (i.e., heliocentric solar system, the physical origins of illnesses, flight). Just becasue I understand how the material of creation operates, I ought not to abandon my faith in something that is beyond material understanding. However, my faith ought to also be tempered by good reason, as Augustine of Hippo suggested 1600 years ago.
Obviously, the science presented in this book does not necessitate belief in any particular form of God or any God at all, but it does demonstrate one way that personal faith fits well with science. While he provides many examples of how evolution takes place and the evidence we have for it, I think that he could have struck a more personal note if he had discussed a little more fully the evolutionary history of humans from earlier hominids, showing the gradation of intellectual capacity that is apparent in the anatomical and the anthropologic data found in the fossil record. But, this may require a whole book in and of itself so I understand why he couldn't get into too much detail.
Post a Comment