From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:47:28 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa,riggs@tec.army.mil,sarima@tdatirv.UUCP
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <497@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <7934@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> dekorte@next2.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen Dekorte) writes:
>|Evolution(and science in general) serve to eliminate the unexplained
>|thereby removing these once mysteries from the need for super-natural
>|explainations.
>
>Very cogent point.
>
>And one few fundamentalists rally think throuhg, after all if any removal
>of mystery weakens belief in God, then *all* of science is antithetical
>to religious faith.
>
>So one must either find some basis for religion other than unknowns,
>or one must reject all traditional religions.
>-- 


	I disagree completely. Your statements reflect a lack of 
understanding of how religious beliefs relate to what we call "knowledge".

	1. Fundamentalists are the most "scientific" of all believers.
	They need their facts straight, and they all have to fit 
	scripture, which is why they are so concerned about proving
	evolution wrong. There is nothing "mystical" about the Southern
	Baptist Church. They dropped such doctrines as transubstantiation
	and adoration of the saints long ago, because such beliefs
	were thought to be superstitious. But it is disturbing to such
	believers, who consider themselves to have such a firm grasp
	on the truth to be proven wrong, since they themselves are 
	veterans at proving the irrationality of others' beliefs.
	Who were the most purely rational of all the Christian theologians ?

	Saint Augustine and Calvin.

	2. Mystics do rely on the unknown - but they generally do it for 
	their own reasons and urges. Since mystics reject man's ability 
	to understand all the reality there is to know by way of their
	senses, they seek that knowledge through extrasensory means. 
	This sort of thinking is impervious to scientific rebuttal -
	it takes a sort of arrogant "faith in science" to assert that
	man can "know" about all the things mystics are interested in
	knowing. But I think it is fair to say that it is not a desire
	to deny the scientists their due which impels mystics on this
	strange and often lonely path.

	3. There are many shades in between fundamentalists and mystics.
	The Christian charismatics are into what they experience. For these
	people, mysticism and fundamentalism are combined. They seek 
	experiences, somewhat analagous to the Greek "mysteries", not to
	seek some Gnostic truth hidden to man, but to reaffirm the 
	theologically appropriate basis for their belief. You can spend
	lots and lots and lots of time trying to debunk their sense
	perceptions, but here again, such people are responding to deeper
	urges than trying to figure out why lightning strikes where it does.

	4. Of interest are also people who call themselves "Reconstructionists"
	who, in effect, are reinterpreting traditional religion in such a
	way that God's presence is not necessary to spiritual life. This
	is a bit of novelty in Western culture, and I'm not at all sure
	that it is going to get anywhere. But here again, the activity of such
	people gives the lie to the statement that if science were successful
	it would sweep religion off the table. Not likely.

	Bill R.

	
-- 
Bill R.