I watched a clip of a Richard Dawkins video last night. His discovery, at a young age, of Darwin's work lead him de facto to atheism. I suppose that is fine for him, but it was sort of a ding ding moment for me.
It's not that I haven't thought this before, it's just that I've never really isolated the thought, I don't think, or pulled it out of the rubble.
Why the insistence or assumption of an "Explanation God"? And yes, I just made that term up. What I mean is, why do believers need to believe that God is the ghost in the machine, God is the creator and thus the solution to the riddle of the physical universe? And why do non-believers think that humankind just created God to answer the things that they, at the time, could not answer with science?
I suppose I answered my own question. Believers do tend to believe that, because that is the mythos of God isn't it? God makes the sun rise, God made the dirt, God coaxes the stem from the seed. I think it is a mistake to teach this in church as a necessary stipulation of God. The church builds its own straw man. I guess it went over my head in confirmation class, because they said a lot of silly things at me and honestly I was way ahead of them.
God is not the answer or the explanation. God is not the balm to appease my feeble mind. No wonder the evolution debate always seemed so banal to me. God explains nothing, and it is specifically that quality which obliges me to believe.
God is not the the regular momentum of grass growing. God is chaos in a hypodermic needle.
__
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment