Image via WikipediIs atheism reductionist? Does it fail to recognize layers of explanation?
Is there a direction and a "plot" to the universe, or is the elegant unfolding of the universe since the Big Bang just a crazy outcome of a purposeless explosion?
Scot McKnight reviewing John F. Haught's book Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life:
There is, Haught suggests, a direction and a purpose to creation, but we will not see the intent and direction at the level of chemistry and physics any more than we see the intent in To Kill a Mockingbird at the level of grammar and spelling. Even less will we see the meaning at the level of the chemistry of paper and dyes, the engineering of the printing press, or the materials chemistry behind the electronic ink or electronic paper of a Kindle or Nook or other e-reader....
I am not a theist because I find gaps in the grammar and spelling that require direct action of God - I am a theist because I believe in a plot, purpose, and direction that transcends the nuts and bolts of the grammar and spelling. There is more to life than the laws of chemistry and physics.How about you -- do you believe in a plot, purpose, and direction to life?
To your life?
Regain your humanity. Make the existential leap. Rebel against the atheist machine.™
Read more.
4 comments:
Lately there have been a number of atheistic evolutionists who have rejected evolution not because of some religious experience but because of new scientific facts coming to light. Men like Antony Flew who preached atheism as enthusiastically as Dawkins and Hitchens continue to do today now believe in a god, but not the God of salvation. They still haven't found the purpose of life, but at least it is a step in the right direction. A good site for those who are interested is "Science Against Evolution". No religion, just pure science.
Good blog.
As someone said, "I don't have enouth faith to be an athiest."
Thanks -- I'll check it out.
Good quote.
"No religion, just pure science.
Good blog."
You may want to retract that statement as that blog is littered with religous bias and scientific apathy.
Jonathan -- this post explains why we are always talking past each other -- you are seeking to explain at the levels of chemistry, biology, physics, I am seeking to explain at the level of purpose and meaning.
That's why I can truncate the OOL/darwinian process into "from goo to you" -- because, when there's no purpose or meaning (no plot), the mechanisms to "get there" are not that interesting or important.
Post a Comment