![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Culture Wars
Sep. 18th, 2008 11:29 amI've never understood why one shouldn't accept evolution and still be open to the existence of God. That, apparently was Darwin's own position. It was the position of a lot of other Victorians too. People like Charles Kingsley, Matthew Arnold, Robert Browning. They absorbed the new scientific information and adjusted their theology accordingly. I'm a bit hazy now about what they taught me at Westcott House Theological College- nearly 40 years ago- but I remember reading a huge and very entertaining book about the 19th century culture wars and coming to the end and thinking, "Well that's sorted; I don't have to worry about that any more."
God may or may not exist- but if He does, why shouldn't evolution be one of his tools? Simple as that.
But here we are- well over a century after it seemed like the issue was settled- and the controversy is still raging- only now the Darwinists- some of them- (unmindful of their man's quiet agnosticism) are just as virulent and bigoted as their fundamentalist opponents. A Professor Reiss has just had to step down from his job as Director of Education for the Royal Society for suggesting, in a nuanced speech, that Creationsim should be treated with respect in Science classes and engaged with- because, well, stomping all over people's sensitive religious and cultural beliefs just alienates them and is counterproductive.
A modest proposal- maybe even mistaken- but surely not a resigning matter?
When people get fanatical about defending- or aggressively advancing- a position- one has to wonder why they're so afraid. Darwin didn't feel threatened by Theists. Why should his successors?
My own quiet, agnostic suspicion is that a paradigm shift is on its way. Scientific materialism- of a rather basic kind, not really justified by the data- has become the orthodoxy of western liberal society. It's the norm not to believe in God or spirituality or anything like that. An unexamined Atheism has become our comfort blanket- banishing the need to even consider whole, vast swathes of human experience. Ghosts? Don't exist; end of story- you know the sort of thing. But what if real science- as in quantum physics- CERN etc- actually suggests otherwise? Well, perhaps we get jumpy and tetchy and start shouting at Muslims.
And sacking mild-mannered professors.
I dont know enough science- of any kind- to take this argument much further. All, I've got, really, is a gut feeling, a hunch. And a distaste for fanaticism. I don't like it when a silly person stands up and bangs the cover of a bronze age religious book (which he probably hasn't read) and says it contains all the science anyone needs to know- but equally I don't like it when a silly person stands up and bangs the cover of a 19th century science book (which he probably hasn't read) and says it contains all the theology we need to know. I suspect both of them are running scared.
And what they're running scared of is the truth.
God may or may not exist- but if He does, why shouldn't evolution be one of his tools? Simple as that.
But here we are- well over a century after it seemed like the issue was settled- and the controversy is still raging- only now the Darwinists- some of them- (unmindful of their man's quiet agnosticism) are just as virulent and bigoted as their fundamentalist opponents. A Professor Reiss has just had to step down from his job as Director of Education for the Royal Society for suggesting, in a nuanced speech, that Creationsim should be treated with respect in Science classes and engaged with- because, well, stomping all over people's sensitive religious and cultural beliefs just alienates them and is counterproductive.
A modest proposal- maybe even mistaken- but surely not a resigning matter?
When people get fanatical about defending- or aggressively advancing- a position- one has to wonder why they're so afraid. Darwin didn't feel threatened by Theists. Why should his successors?
My own quiet, agnostic suspicion is that a paradigm shift is on its way. Scientific materialism- of a rather basic kind, not really justified by the data- has become the orthodoxy of western liberal society. It's the norm not to believe in God or spirituality or anything like that. An unexamined Atheism has become our comfort blanket- banishing the need to even consider whole, vast swathes of human experience. Ghosts? Don't exist; end of story- you know the sort of thing. But what if real science- as in quantum physics- CERN etc- actually suggests otherwise? Well, perhaps we get jumpy and tetchy and start shouting at Muslims.
And sacking mild-mannered professors.
I dont know enough science- of any kind- to take this argument much further. All, I've got, really, is a gut feeling, a hunch. And a distaste for fanaticism. I don't like it when a silly person stands up and bangs the cover of a bronze age religious book (which he probably hasn't read) and says it contains all the science anyone needs to know- but equally I don't like it when a silly person stands up and bangs the cover of a 19th century science book (which he probably hasn't read) and says it contains all the theology we need to know. I suspect both of them are running scared.
And what they're running scared of is the truth.
