Deism vs Fidelism
~C4Chaos points out Michael Dowd as an integrally informed speaker, working to promote a synthesis of religion and science. Indeed, for a Christian public, Dowd is a promising voice of neo-deism (see a really nice entry at Wikipedia), though he doesn't identify as such, nor does he identify as integral (but then, some who do are not etc.). Deism is typically contrasted with fideism, where semantically religion and spirituality is identified or - more correctly - delimited in many Western cultures as "faith", as if religion and spirituality cannot be known by any other name. I believe Wilber is correct to point that the current conversation on science and religion "assumes that everybody knows what we are talking about when we talk about religion. While science is something that we can fairly well agree on the meaning of, religion or spirituality has a very broad range of meaning."
That broad range of meaning is definitely NOT given enough attention to warrant an informed debate (i.e. a debate on a level of perspective that would permit an integral proposition to even be considered). "Religion" is NEVER used by Dawkins, Dennett, and even Harris (who won't be called an "atheist", but is definitely atheistic) in a way that would allow or include something like Deism, and they don't qualify their usage of "religion" as a mythic, literalist, dogmatic, amber or lower religion, as opposed to higher levels. Well, that religion is easy prey for a rational or higher attack, but then one basically commits "LLF" (level-line fallacy, of which I've posted before) , and off it goes... Enjoy this promotional video for Dowd's book.
NOTE: Michael Dowd, in his own words, wrote Thank God for Evolution! with five different audiences in mind:
1) Those who embrace evolution but don’t have joy, peace, or a deep sense of meaning and purpose in their lives (i.e., those who don’t have a personal relationship with God).
2) Mainline Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Anabaptist believers.
3) Progressive, and Emerging Church Christians.
4) WWJD-type evangelical “Christ followers” (i.e., those committed to following Jesus “in His steps”).
5) Anyone and everyone struggling with their sinful or addictive nature.
And, he points that "Thank God for Evolution! is NOT intended for those whose walk with God is solidly embedded within a strict, literalist interpretation of scripture. But those who experience twinges of doubt when the book of Genesis is used line-by-line to explain the creation of this world are likely to experience this perspective not as a breath, but as a gust, of fresh air." This somewhat puts his work in perspective, especially when considering the more general science/religion "debate".
While Dowd offers a gust of fresh air, that is, a renewal within the Christian discourse into a spiritual perspective on evolution and an evolutionary view of spirituality itself, the debate around "new atheists" seems to be a v-memetic turf war, and - as it has become increasingly obvious - values are only one of many developmental lines, not to be naively confused with worldviews or even views in general. Dawkins probably sells most books among them, and his approach seems the most flattened (almost vulgar). What people espouse, what they embody, and how they differ significantly in various developmental streams - all this makes the whole issue much more complex than simply (rational) science vs. (mythic) religion.
That broad range of meaning is definitely NOT given enough attention to warrant an informed debate (i.e. a debate on a level of perspective that would permit an integral proposition to even be considered). "Religion" is NEVER used by Dawkins, Dennett, and even Harris (who won't be called an "atheist", but is definitely atheistic) in a way that would allow or include something like Deism, and they don't qualify their usage of "religion" as a mythic, literalist, dogmatic, amber or lower religion, as opposed to higher levels. Well, that religion is easy prey for a rational or higher attack, but then one basically commits "LLF" (level-line fallacy, of which I've posted before) , and off it goes... Enjoy this promotional video for Dowd's book.
NOTE: Michael Dowd, in his own words, wrote Thank God for Evolution! with five different audiences in mind:
1) Those who embrace evolution but don’t have joy, peace, or a deep sense of meaning and purpose in their lives (i.e., those who don’t have a personal relationship with God).
2) Mainline Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Anabaptist believers.
3) Progressive, and Emerging Church Christians.
4) WWJD-type evangelical “Christ followers” (i.e., those committed to following Jesus “in His steps”).
5) Anyone and everyone struggling with their sinful or addictive nature.
And, he points that "Thank God for Evolution! is NOT intended for those whose walk with God is solidly embedded within a strict, literalist interpretation of scripture. But those who experience twinges of doubt when the book of Genesis is used line-by-line to explain the creation of this world are likely to experience this perspective not as a breath, but as a gust, of fresh air." This somewhat puts his work in perspective, especially when considering the more general science/religion "debate".
While Dowd offers a gust of fresh air, that is, a renewal within the Christian discourse into a spiritual perspective on evolution and an evolutionary view of spirituality itself, the debate around "new atheists" seems to be a v-memetic turf war, and - as it has become increasingly obvious - values are only one of many developmental lines, not to be naively confused with worldviews or even views in general. Dawkins probably sells most books among them, and his approach seems the most flattened (almost vulgar). What people espouse, what they embody, and how they differ significantly in various developmental streams - all this makes the whole issue much more complex than simply (rational) science vs. (mythic) religion.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home