Pro-evolution stance by Episcop. Bishop Spong (ret.)

[Martin]

http://forums.prospero.com/sp-bishopspong

 

http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/index_spong2.asp?sc=1&promo=8E8054FA-64A6-4100-9B08-37F4592A6F13&email=

 

Here, in one of his weekly Q&A emails, he addresses Intelligent Design:

 

 

Marion from Kansas writes:

"In my state the Board of Education threw out the teaching of evolution a few years ago. Upon election of moderate members, the Board brought it back again. Now conservatives are in the majority again and the whole issue of universe origin is being debated again. This time the issue of "intelligent design" is being brought in as needing to be taught. Is this just another way of bringing in conservative belief about instant creation?"

 

Dear Marion,

 

On one level it really doesn't matter what the Kansas Board of Education thinks, evolution is real and is not subject to majority vote any more than whether epilepsy is caused by demon possession. Yet it is embarrassing to live in a state where public ignorance can force people to deny reality. It will also ill-equip the children of Kansas to live in the modern world. Already American school children are far behind Asians in the field of science. The pursuit of knowledge should never be compromised to protect religious sensitivities. That is where religious tyranny begins.

Intelligent Design is just one more smoke screen. The task of geologists and anthropologists is to study the sources of the life of this world. They should be free to follow wherever their scientific research carries them. If Christianity is threatened by truth, it is already too late to save it. Imagine worshiping a God so weak and incompetent that the Kansas School Board must defend this God from science and new learning. It is pitiful.

 

The challenge of Darwinian thinking to traditional Christianity is deep and profound. That means that Christianity's survival depends on its being big enough to embrace a post-Darwinian world. If we cannot then Christianity will surely die. I do not believe that is the fate toward which Christianity is headed unless it becomes that petty, small-minded enterprise that must hide in ignorance and fear lest it be destroyed.

 

I hope you and others will resist these tactics at the ballot box. If that fails then you have to assess whether or not you want your children to grow up in the environment that Kansas is creating. If not, you might consider moving. I for one hope you will stay and fight for ignorance will not prevail forever, even in Kansas.

 

came by this by way of

http://tildblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/intelligent-christianity-spong-who.html

 

and by way of a transplanted Brit, Mark Trodden, on this blog:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/10/02/the-world-eyes-american-ignorance/

[lucaspa]

Spong is a pretty bright guy:

 

If Christianity is threatened by truth, it is already too late to save it. Imagine worshiping a God so weak and incompetent that the Kansas School Board must defend this God from science and new learning. It is pitiful.

 

What Spong doesn't mention is that there is a long history in Christianity of "two books". That is, there are two books about God: the BiBle and Creation.

 

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

 

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

 

Now, if God really did create, what did He create? Why, the physical world that science studies, of course! This means that, for a Christian, everything in the physical universe was put there by God, either directly or indirectly. God wrote the book of Creation. To deny what that book says, which is what creationists of all stripes, including IDers, do is to deny God.

 

The challenge of Darwinian thinking to traditional Christianity is deep and profound. That means that Christianity's survival depends on its being big enough to embrace a post-Darwinian world. If we cannot then Christianity will surely die. I do not believe that is the fate toward which Christianity is headed unless it becomes that petty, small-minded enterprise that must hide in ignorance and fear lest it be destroyed.

Again, Spong is wise, but I think he overlooks that there is now a new religion that calls itself Christianity, but isn't. It's Fundamentalism, after the Five Fundamentals published between 1900-1910. This religion does not worship God, but instead has made their literal, human interpretation of the Bible into a god for them to worship. Darwinian thinking does indeed threaten Fundamentalism; if fact, it destroys Fundamentalism because it shows that the literal interpretation that is their god is false. If Fundamentalism takes over real Christianity, then Spong's "petty, small-minded enterprise that must hide in ignorance and fear lest it be destroyed" will come to pass. Francis Bacon saw the danger of a literal interpretation 400 years ago:

 

"This vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapters of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings ... because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also an heretical religion." Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1xiv

 

But Darwinian thinking doesn't threaten Christianity:

 

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437; quoted by Stephen Neill in Anglicanism, Penguin Books, 1960, pg. 240.

 

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

[Martin]

... there is now a new religion that calls itself Christianity, but isn't. It's Fundamentalism, after the Five Fundamentals published between 1900-1910. This religion does not worship God, but instead has made their literal, human interpretation of the Bible into a god for them to worship...

 

I substantially agree with many of your points, maybe all.

Setting up the Bible as an idol is idolatry.

 

 

the catch is the perceived need for human authority----someone who speaks as a representative of the Creator.

 

Science constantly disappoints the (large number of) people who want morally powerful figures of authority.

 

We live in scary times and it is especially hard for Americans in a certain sense because our world position is declining relative to some other rising economic powers---and our security seen as threatened----and the cheap energy basis of our way of life is seen as disappearing----and the demographics are changing fast with immigration etc.

 

In scary times people often want to have someone who speaks as God's representative, to encapsulate the future for them, tell them what to do, or keep their neighbors law-abiding. What would happen if my neighbors didnt believe in Heaven and Hell, maybe would they take away my house?

 

Maybe large multiethnic societies NEED some kind of theocracy or other type dictatorship. Maybe ordinary rationality and democracy doesnt work. We dont entirely know.

 

sorry to end on a dark note. have to go.

 

anyway....

[lucaspa]

I substantially agree with many of your points' date=' maybe all.

Setting up the Bible as an idol is idolatry.[/quote']

Sure is, isn't it? Violates the First Commandment.

 

the catch is the perceived need for human authority----someone who speaks as a representative of the Creator.

A minister friend of mine told me that Fundamentalism is inherent in the idea of sola scriptura. After thinking about it, I tend to agree. Sola scripture, initially, was simply that you could find what you needed to know about God in scripture; you did not need the Catholic priests to interceded between you and God. Thus, sola scriptura was a foundation of Protestantism. However, it is a small step from sola scriptura to one of the Fundamentals: scripture is the actual Word of God. Rather than a series of books talking about God, the Bible then becomes a book written by God. (Something scripture does not claim for itself.) Now, if the Bible is written by God, then it logically follows that is accurate in everything. And thus the conflict between Fundamentalism and science. Notice we have the same conflict between Islam and science because the Quran is supposedly dicated by Allah, and parts of it are contradicted by science.

 

Science constantly disappoints the (large number of) people who want morally powerful figures of authority.

Well, DUH. Since science isn't a system of ethics or morality, of course it isn't going to provide moral authority!

 

I also submit that most people can't live with unanswered questions. The "I don't know (now)" that science must often use is something that most people can't live with. I've had several atheists, when I tell them that science is agnostic, refuse to accept that because "you can't sit on the fence". Yes, science not only can sit on fences, but must sit on fences, and sometimes must sit on those fences for a LOOOOONNNGGGG time.

 

We live in scary times and it is especially hard for Americans in a certain sense because our world position is declining relative to some other rising economic powers---and our security seen as threatened----and the cheap energy basis of our way of life is seen as disappearing----and the demographics are changing fast with immigration etc.

This wasn't where Fundamentalism started. Fundamentalism started as a reaction mostly to Higher Criticism. Higher Criticism challenged the "certainty" of scripture as authority. However, you might have a good sociological explanation for the rapid increase in recruitment to Fundamentalism.

 

In scary times people often want to have someone who speaks as God's representative, to encapsulate the future for them, tell them what to do, or keep their neighbors law-abiding. What would happen if my neighbors didnt believe in Heaven and Hell, maybe would they take away my house?

I think the merger of Fundamentalism with politics is more of a way to get authority to enforce their particular moral values on people who increasingly have a different set of morals. A multiethnic culture must, by necessity, be tolerant. However, tolerance means uncertainty. You can't say that your set of morals (say over pre-marital sex) is absolutely right. Fundamentalism gives people that "certainty".

 

Maybe large multiethnic societies NEED some kind of theocracy or other type dictatorship. Maybe ordinary rationality and democracy doesnt work. We dont entirely know.

Well, republican democracy did not work for Rome when it became large and multiethnic.

 

England itself remained pretty monoethnic even while it had the Empire. Now it is starting to be multiethnic, and they are putting more restrictions on behavior than we are.

 

So yes, democracy may not work in multiethnic societies. However, the problem is that we are already a multiethnic country. The Fundamentalists want us to be essentially monoethnic. I don't see how we can do that.

[Martin]

I really appreciate these thoughtful posts, lucaspa, and find myself in general agreement with several of your points----indeed most if not all. Very interesting observations.

 

(I don't always share your perspective on other topics expressed in other threads, but here I find what you say clear and convincing)

 

dont have anything to add just at the moment, but did not want to leave this last post without a reply, even if brief.

[yialanliu]

evolution is real

Really? I always thought it was theory in science and science itself is based on postulates like we have to agree that we aren't like a matrix and so forth right?

public ignorance can force people to deny reality

What does he mean by denying reality? First, evolution is not without flaws. If evolution was 100 percent perfect, there would be a lot less skeptics wouldn there? If you can tell me evolution is perfect then you yourself is ignorant and the part where its not perfect, people sometimes question.

Imagine worshiping a God so weak and incompetent that the Kansas School Board must defend this God from science and new learning. It is pitiful.

Who said they were defending God? They were defending Intelligent Design and they have a right to believe it. And you say it is pitiful? Lets throw it back...IMAGINE BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION WHICH PEOPLE HAVE TO DEFEND BY MAKING OTHERS FEEL PITIFUL...Are you that low?

That means that Christianity's survival depends on its being big enough to embrace a post-Darwinian world. If we cannot then Christianity will surely die. I do not believe that is the fate toward which Christianity is headed unless it becomes that petty, small-minded enterprise that must hide in ignorance and fear lest it be destroyed.

Are you telling me that the christian belief hangs onto our theory of intelligent design and if it is proven false there would be no more christianity? I beg to differ, christianity isn't just intelligent design it has many more facets than one theory. Just like if I prove there is no evolution, it doesn't mean there won't be any more science. Just like if you can prove there is no Intelligent Designer doesn't mean theres no God...

[Mokele]

Really? I always thought it was theory in science and science itself is based on postulates like we have to agree that we aren't like a matrix and so forth right?

 

There's actually two levels to evolution. There's the theory, which deals with how things happen, mechanisms, and such, and then there's the observed instance, which are fact. It's like gravity: there's the fact an the theory of why we observe the fact and how it works.

 

What does he mean by denying reality? First, evolution is not without flaws. If evolution was 100 percent perfect, there would be a lot less skeptics wouldn there? If you can tell me evolution is perfect then you yourself is ignorant and the part where its not perfect, people sometimes question.

 

Is the current body of evolutionary knowldge perfect, no. Do we know, fro 100% fact, that evolution occurs? Yes. Do we know to beyond the limit of any reasonable doubt that evolution is the source of all living species? Yes.

 

Why do people deny it? Because they don't like it, and people will deny *anything*, no matter how obviously true, if it threatens their worldview or self-concept. The personal failures of such inividuals do not have any impact on the veracity of evolution.

 

They were defending Intelligent Design and they have a right to believe it.

 

But not to teach it in science class, where it doesn't belong.

 

Lets throw it back...IMAGINE BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION WHICH PEOPLE HAVE TO DEFEND BY MAKING OTHERS FEEL PITIFUL...Are you that low?

 

And innacurate. I know evolution to be true because I have seen countless examples of it and it's mechanisms, often personally. In fact, a large part of my thesis is *only* explainable in light of the organism's evolutionary history.

 

Are you telling me that the christian belief hangs onto our theory of intelligent design and if it is proven false there would be no more christianity? I beg to differ, christianity isn't just intelligent design it has many more facets than one theory. Just like if I prove there is no evolution, it doesn't mean there won't be any more science. Just like if you can prove there is no Intelligent Designer doesn't mean theres no God...

 

I think the Bishop being quoted is saying precisely that: that Christianity does not need to exist only in the margins of science, but that certain people's warped theologies require it to, and that fact should tip them off that something is wrong with their theology.

 

Mokele

[j_p]

I'm still reeling from the characterization of Christian Fundamentalism as idolatry, and the Bible as a graven image ...

 

A bit obvious once it's pointed out.

 

Really? I always thought it was theory in science and science itself is based on postulates like we have to agree that we aren't like a matrix and so forth right?

Wrong.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena' date=' especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[/b'] 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The scientific definition of theory is the first, not the sixth.

 

Modern science is based on observation, and therefore does not accept 'postulates' as the term is generally used, "omething assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument. "[ibid.]

 

American Heritage Book of English Usage:

 

The words axiom and postulate are synonymous in

mathematics

. They are statements that are accepted as true in order to study the consequences that follow from them.

[yialanliu]

I'm still reeling from the characterization of Christian Fundamentalism as idolatry' date=' and the Bible as a graven image ...

 

A bit obvious once it's pointed out.

 

Wrong.

[indent']

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[/indent]

The scientific definition of theory is the first, not the sixth.

 

Modern science is based on observation, and therefore does not accept 'postulates' as the term is generally used, "omething assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument. "[ibid.]

 

American Heritage Book of English Usage:

 

The words axiom and postulate are synonymous in

mathematics

. They are statements that are accepted as true in order to study the consequences that follow from them.

 

 

You misinterpereted I said SCIENCE IS BASED ON POSULATES

and yes you ur self said SOMETHING ACCEPTED...then prove to me we are first of all not like the movie Matrix...

[Mokele]

You're confused. Even if it *was* the matrix, it wouldn't make science at all invalid. Science seeks to understand the observable world. Even if the observable world is not the actual world (as in the Matrix), science will still be accurate in describing it and understanding it.

 

The whole "maybe it's all the matrix / someone's dream / whatever" is a load of psuedo-intellectual hogwash thrown around coffee shops by 1st year philosophy majors hoping to make people think they're deep, anyway.

 

Mokele

[j_p]

You misinterpereted I said SCIENCE IS BASED ON POSULATES

and yes you ur self said SOMETHING ACCEPTED...then prove to me we are first of all not like the movie Matrix...

 

I did not misunderstand you. I did not even disagree with you. I told you that you were wrong, and explained why.

 

You might try reading others' posts before you reply to them.