(no subject)

[mari4212]

Well, since I've been asked this twice in recent days, I think I should go ahead and answer it.

The question was, how do I deal with science and the theory of evolution when I'm known to be Christian and very religious?

To start off with, this may be an obvious point, but all Christians and Christian denominations are not the same. I come from a denomination known as Episcopalianism. We're sort of right in the middle between Catholicism and Prodestantism, which means we get sniped at from both sides. In the Episcopal church, you don't have to take the Bible literally, and the vast majority of us do not. We consider it inspired by God, yes, but also a human creation, with all the fallacies and issues and various interpretations that come from being the creation of human beings. It's rooted in its cultural context, and reacts to the issues of its own time. So while we as Christians still do believe that the Bible is important and tells us important things and informs us about God, we don't think that its truth comes primarily from a literal understanding of the text.

So, from my religious background, I can look at the Genesis creation stories (and may I just point out, there are two separate accounts in there, at some points mutually contradictory?) and take what I consider the main point of the account, ie God created the universe and called it good, without getting bound up in the whole seven days of Creation as the exact, literal truth.

I look to my religion to tell me the whys of the world, and to tell me how to live morally.

I look to science to understand how the world works and what processes function in that world. The theory of evolution, with all of the evidence working to support it, makes logical sense, and is scientifically valid. Therefore, I believe in evolution, until such time as sufficient evidence exists to invalidate the theory. I don't think it makes me a bad Christian to believe in it, any more than believing that a geocentric model of the universe was incorrect makes me a bad Christian.

There you go, elvisvf101, I hope that answers your question fully.

Comments

[dianaish.livejournal.com]

I seriously wish I wrote down what my teacher had up about the differences of science and religon and how you can believe in both of them. They're two totally different things and people just try to make it seem close.

My biology teacher, for one, has told us she is extremeley relgious but she still believes in evolution.
Charles Darwin, the founder (I will not say creator), was extremeley relgious and often times tried to disprove his theory but nothing could be found. Not even today there is any proof disproving it.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

The problem really came in during the Enlightenment Era, because during that time period true came to mean something that is scientifically probable or historically accurate. Therefore, if the Bible was to be true, it had to be taken literally, as a historical record of the events. Therefore, if science contradicts something the Bible says, people are afraid that it will somehow disprove their beliefs, and it frightens them.

However, truth is not that simple. Think of a song you love, that speaks about your life and your beliefs. Is it always factually accurate? No, not usually. But it does tell a truth, in an understandable format.

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

I always thought science+evolution were among the easiest things to reconcile with Christianity. I grew up some sort of Protestant and was just like, " 'Days' is used metaphorically, and why couldn't God use evolution as a method of Creation?"

I've gotta say, though, that I always get nervous around talk of not taking the Bible as literal truth. Yes it's rooted in specific cultural contexts and all, but I always worry that it gets too easy to just "interpret" the Bible to mean what we want it to mean.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'll agree. Interpretation of the Bible should be not be done lightly, and it should always be done with an eye towards the original intention of the passage. You can then decide to accept or reject that passage, again, work that should not be done without careful thought or consideration.

Proof-texting, or using selected passages from something to prove your point regardless of their original meaning, should not be done at all, though sadly it happens all too often.

My problem with taking the Bible completely literally is that so much of the text is not in a historical literal format. The book of Job, for example, is a folktale. There are songs and poems and parables, metaphorical language, similies, apocalyptic writings, and all of those are formats that are not meant to be taken literally, but which tell some truth, regardless of their factuality.

[sileri.livejournal.com]

The Dalai Lama is all for the co-existence of religion and science. I understand he gave an impressive speech at Neuroscience last year. [generic holding back complaint here] And if I recall correctly, a poll by The Scientist demonstrated that a majority of scientists practice some form of religious observance. I believe the problem stems from the vocal minority of the Vatican and some other sources, who feel it must be one or the other.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

There are some radicals on both sides of the issue that would love to see us forget that the other side has valid points. But really, science and religion are easily compatable, once you recall that they are asking different questions about the world.

[medie]

Heh, I know what you mean. I'm actually Pentecostal but when it comes to Evolution and Creationism, I don't really come down on the side of either one exactly. I do believe God was behind the creation of the world but I also believe that for everything He directs, there is a logical and factual PROCESS which bears that out and there's no real process descripted in the bible because, for pete's sake, how on earth are people who lived that long ago possibly going to be able to understand scientific processes. Bless 'em, it would look like magic to them. *G*

And you get sniped at? *HUGS*

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I haven't been sniped at at all. The people who've been asking this have been doing so with all respect, because they know I balance the two beliefs and wanted to understand my thought process, that's all.

And yes, that's exactly it. God makes the rules that governs the universe, and we don't always understand them. Heck, two hundred years from now, people are going to be laughing about how little we understood things now.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

And now I looked up and re-read my entry and saw what led you to say something about sniping.

It's more the church as a whole that gets comments whenever arguements rise up between Catholics and Prodestants. We're so similar in litergical format and church organization to the Catholics that sometimes other Prodestants will joke about it, but we're far enough on the Prodestant divide on other issues that the Catholics will comment.

And then we make fun of ourselves as well, calling ourselves Catholic-lite. All the redemption, half the guilt.

Q&A

[elvisvf101.livejournal.com]

I suspect things like this are never fully answered, after all, the person who answers them one day may wake up to be a different person another day, and the change is always happening, a reality of who and what we are.

But yes, my question is answered. I find a lot of people afraid to tackle certain issues, and that always troubles me. As a very wise man once said, the fear of a thing is only intensified if you don't name it (or was it flubber, oddiment, nitwick, tweak, I always get those confused).

It's nice to know that people are willing to take the plunge and explore the impact of their faith. That way, we know how deep it goes and how strong it is. Else we may find the foundation built on sand and swept away in the storm.

Re: Q&A

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

True, we can never fully answer for all time, but we can answer fully from our current perspective, which is all we have at that time.

I can understand not always wanting to discuss things with certain people, because they may be too personal, but I've never understood not wanting to discuss issues with anyone. Maybe it's just because I'm such a verbally-oriented person, if something's important or troubling me, I'll talk it out and discuss it.

[smammers.livejournal.com]

Well, thank you for sharing, because I didn't know that that was what being Episcopalian meant. I was raised Roman Catholic and am now agnostic, but I am apparently pretty uneducated when it comes to other forms of Christianity.

Turns out, what you described above is pretty close to what I believe. I do still hold the Bible in high regard, but I'm agnostic because I haven't quite decided if I really believe in God or not.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. Actually, if you're interested in Episcopalians, check out an online version of the Book of Common Prayer like the one here: http://vidicon.dandello.net/bocp/

More than anything else, Episcopalians are united by the way we pray, because there's a lot of variation in individual Episcopalian beliefs. As one wit put it, no matter what you believe, there's at least one Episcopalian that agrees with you.

[your-downfall.livejournal.com]

I think that's a really good explanation. I don't particularly consider myself Christian, or to be following any particular religion, but I do consider myself spiritual, and I know where you are coming from. My minister said something very similar when I was going through a faith-questioning time.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Thank you.