Exploring Ecumenism

Justification and Imperialism

In my last post , I argued the Christian doctrine of Original Sin and the theory of evolution are entirely compatible.  This is something of an embarrassment because Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of original sin has encouraged so much Christian censoriousness.  He argued that the sin (of Adam and Eve) is communicated through the sex act and this has been enough to justify a fear of sex, damaging to the life of the church, including the position of women, who have been accused of the fall in much the same way as the Jews are accused of murdering Jesus.

Original sin is the first of Wesley's three great doctrines and so we need to look at the other two before we arrive at a final conclusion.  The next is Justification by faith. 

The Ichneumon Wasp

Williams goes on to quote another Australian colleague, who shares the national gift for chucking a bonzer phrase, on the Ichneumonid wasps, whose designer, if there was one, 'must have been a sadistic bastard'.  Darwin, although he visited Australia as a young man, expressed the same sentiment in staider, less antipodean terms: 'I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars.'  (From: The Greatest Show on Earth  by Richard Dawkins, page 370)

This criticism of the Christian faith, boils down to the question: why does God allow suffering?  In this and the next two posts I will attempt a theological response.  I will show evolution is a threat not to the Christian faith but to some interpretations of it. 

Why is Cosmology Important for Ecumenists?

I want to return to the theme of science for a few posts.  (I will return to ecumenism's modern history; this diversion is to allow time to re-read Called to be One). 

I had a conversation the other day about Christian interpretations of evolution and it was suggested I should write down my ideas.  I'll start to do that in my next post.  But first, I aim to review how my thnking has moved on since I left this topic last summer. 

On God's Relationship with Matter

We know very little about consciousness although, according to Martin in Does It Matter?, it should be possible to study it using scientific methods.  This would be through collection and comparison of accounts of experiences.  Wesley, according to Runyon's The New Creation(page 72f), understood experience to be important in spiritual matters.  He did not rule out an empirical approach to spiritual matters because accounts of experiences can be studied.

Purpose not Design

I have already argued God is no designer.  In a fascinating sequence starting on page 197, Martin shows how Dawkins smuggles a purposeful intelligence into the evolutionary process.  In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins calculates the chances of producing haemoglobin by the random processes of evolution are 1 in 10¹⁵⁰.  But he takes a 'neat side-step' around this problem.

The Case Against Creationism

One of the entertaining dimensions of the atheist onslaught against Christianity is that it is an unwinnable argument.  Either they address people like me who believe in evolution (and depart from the atheist position on other points that don't seem to be debated) ... (apparently I'm unintentionally being fooled by fundamentalists because they are the true representatives of Christianity - so much for solidarity amongst radicals!) ... or else they address fundamentalists who will never be persuaded by science on principle.

Does Evolution have a Purpose?

I have already suggested that although design is not involved in evolution, this does not rule out purpose. 

1. I understand by design a detailed plan, drawn up before the proposed work is done.  God the designer is equivalent to the traditional Calvinist God, who created everything at the beginning, with no room for error.  Is it necessarily the case that God's purpose is best served by such an inflexible approach to creation?  Theologically it opens up several problems, such as why does a good (and absolute) creator allow suffering?  The answer must boil down to: it depends upon what God is trying to achieve.

The Case Against Materialism

According to his autobiography, Bertrand Russell's grandmother used to say, 'What is mind?  No matter.  What is matter?  Never mind.'

Martin in Does it Matter? constructs a convincing argument against the materialist view of the universe.  Materialism is a an immensely important and successful philosophy.  If to abandon a materialist worldview would be to embrace a supernatural worldview I would see that as a major step backwards for humanity.  Not least because there are some very moving materialist readings of scripture, including the only convincing account of Jesus walking on water that I know of.

Can Computers Evolve?

Thinking about artificial intelligence has led me to ask whether it is possible for computers to evolve.  I don't think they can.  The implications for artificial intelligence will be that the route by which humanity arrived at self-awareness is closed to computers.

God does not Design Things

I have already written about the first chapter of Genesis.  What is fascinating about these verses is the idea that God has to look to see it is good.  If God is supposed to be perfect in everything God does, why does God have to look?