If we are to take modern science
seriously, the idea of an omniscient and omnipresence GOD that the ancients
talked about no longer holds water. Rather, if we are to believe in GOD,
the universe could be viewed as something entirely separate to GOD, to respond as analogous to a parent providing encouragement to a child. But of course that doesn't always end well, but can it not all be taken up as in a continuous creation. I don't think the world and the Universe can do anything but to continue to evolve. This all sounds very clumsy,but how else can one explain it ?
Cosmological and biological evolution reveal a GOD who made a universe
that has within it through evolution a certain dynamism and thus participates
in the very creativity of GOD.
If they respect the results of modern science, religious
believers must move away from the notion of a dictator GOD , a Newtonian
GOD, who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly? Perhaps GOD should be seen more as a parent. Scripture is very rich in this thought.
It presents, indeed anthropomorphically, a GOD who gets angry, who disciplines,
a GOD who nurtures the universe. Theologians already possess the concept of GOD ’s continuous creation. I think to explore modern science with this
notion of continuous creation would be a very enriching experience for
theologians and
religious believers. GOD is working with the universe. The universe has
a certain vitality of its own like a child does. You discipline a child but you
try to preserve and enrich the individual character of the child and its own
passion for Life. A parent must allow the child to grow into adulthood, to come
to make its own choices, to go on its own way in life. In such wisdom does GOD
deal with the universe ? These are very weak
images, but how else do we talk about GOD. We can only come to know GOD by
analogy. The universe as we know it today through Science is one way to derive analogical knowledge of GOD. For those who
believe modern science does say something to us about GOD , it provides a
challenge , an enriching challenge, to traditional beliefs about GOD.
Reference
DIVINE ACTION AND NATURAL SELECTION - Science,
Faith and Evolution
© World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
http://www.worldscibooks.com/lifesci/6998.html
5 comments:
I cannot say that the parental God appeals to me, and that is not because my relationship with my parents was highly dissatisfying. Rather, it is because the concept is too Earth oriented. God needs to be more universe oriented, and as we do not know for certain what other species exist beyond earth we are not in a position to say what kind of God would fit the bill.
I agree that the universe and all creation is subject to evolution, even if that evolution is a gradual wearing down, a decomposing, a dissipation of energies. That would appear to be balanced by a gradual move towards more complexity. Evolution, a process of becoming, sentience evolving towards comparative divinity may figure in the final analysis of what God is. Perhaps at any given stage in that process, God simply Is what he Is; neither this nor that.
Hi Tom,
As usual,thanks for your insightful comment.
As you know the message of the NT was a new way of thinking, a freedom from the enslavement from the prior fixed moral laws, but rather the self affirmation and joyfulness that Jesus thought was soon to be manifest in the long awaited messianic kingdom.
The necessity of Jesus to talk in parables was most likely brought about by the fact to talk about the new way of living he is suggesting would have been otherwise unintelligible, or at least deemed impossible. So, in the prodigal son, we have this human idea of the unconditional loving father who not only welcomes back his errant son, but also seeks to console the other son who becomes indignant over the fuss made over his brother. Here, I think Jesus is attempting to explain the relationship of GOD analogous to that of the loving Father to the son. I don’t think it matters too much, does it, if it’s earthly ? - rather it signifies a meaning to do with reconciliation, that could play out differently or not at all in any other spheres of existence not known to us just as you say. Let’s know if you have more thoughts.
Best wishes
Hi Again;
Although I often fail to mention it in writing, my prevailing thought is that an 'as if' approach is useful in one's understanding of scripture. For example, one might say that one's experience of God is as if he were a loving father. As below, so above so to speak.
No, I don't suppose it does matter if the analogy is earthly, except that it risks a literal interpretation. Actually, most human experience can come under the heading of analogous 'as ifs', even that of much of science. So I think it's alright if the other person is on the same wavelength as yourself [or at least nearly so]. But how I do long to get behind the analogies!
Hi Tom,
I have come to the reluctant conclusion Jesus came to us as a stranger, a fisher of men. But we never really got to know properly him did we? He remained, I think, a stranger to even his disciples, who could not understand him, so radical and seemingly impossible was his message to live in harmony and peace with one another. A compassion that must have seemed a form of madness. So powerful it still tugs at our hearts. No hint of any ego. So I think he will forever remain a stranger except for some of his sayings, like bullets, that continue to pierce the heart.
I would commend you for your ideas and on having the courage to express your inner most thoughts in your posts. I am sorry to hear you did not enjoy a good relationship with your parents. At the risk of talking about something I have no knowledge, I feel compelled (by the spirit) to say I think your father would be so proud of you (if we imagine him alive today), especially in relation to your integrity and your unswerving devotion to the truth, to cast aside the ego.
Best wishes
Mmmmm! Not sure about the last bit, but thank you for the compliment.
Post a Comment