I was listening to a lecture on the issues surrounding "Intelligent Design" and it occurred to me that rational theology versus authoritarian theology is not just an issue within the West. Theology and religious belief can be built around empiricism, but often is not. The obstacle to that is whether one believes that science, religion, life, should be tied to causality.
There are some who believe that science, religion, life, draw their authority from books, from teachings, from scientists or sages. And there are some, such as myself (and I believe Shakyamuni), who believe that books, teachings, science and religion; draws its authority from reality. If a teaching denies empirical evidence, then either that teaching is false, or the interpretation of that teaching is bogus. This is applying the methodology of science to life, and those who don't do this, are philosophically denying the principles of causality and substituting supernatural explanations. These supernatural explanations are advanced because they also give power to authority.
The question is does one believe in a causal view of life, or in a supernatural view of life? If the former stories, allegories, and visions are firmly located within the minds and collective conscience, and natural explanations of phenomena are accepted. If the later, myths and legends are treated as if they actually literally happened. This issue is an issue in Buddhism as well as in Christianity and other religions.
"Intelligent Design" is being promoted as a "wedge" issue, quite explicitly, because its target isn't evolution per se. The target of intelligent design advocates is science itself. (Further reading http://www.intelligentdesign.net/, and http://www.discovery.org/a/3600 where the Discovery people openly admit they are using "Intelligent Design" as a wedge against science). They admit that Phillip Johnson intended his project as a wedge project from the beginning, long before he wrote the article where he used the terminology. The religious politics dimension of this discussion is explicitly acknowledged in the cited article:
"Many Darwinists gloat over having supposedly exposed the allegedly secretive “Wedge project.” What they never acknowledge (or realize) is that Phillip Johnson openly discussed the full meaning of the “Wedge” in this book years before the widespread internet circulation of the supposedly super secret “Wedge document,” which summarized many of the points in this book in order to clarify for our supporters the important cultural implications of the battle over intelligent design, and explain the importance of forging ahead by calling attention to the growing body of scientific evidence for design in nature."
The "wedge" is "evidence for design." Design, however, is not proof that there is no evolution. Its obvious that there is design built into the structure of DNA/RNA, amino acids, and other living chemicals. That is not proof of creationism as advanced by these people. They would use a truth that has nothing to do with evolution itself to justify a theological position that has no empirical backing.
In this book, Johnson, also Program Advisor for Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, explains that naturalism, materialism, and modernism aim to remove any support for belief in a personal God who acted with free will to create and sustain the universe. This philosophical assumption forms the bedrock for the belief that plants and animals arose through undirected and purposeless evolutionary processes, and that humans are therefore just another animal, not created in the image of God.
However, there are alternative approaches to reconciling the theological issues presented by the empirical evidence for evolution. Simply acknowledging that the "creation" envisioned in Genesis included the creation of time would put the whole thing in a perspective. Simply looking at the notion that creation is present in each moment of time (as Hasidim do) would put this issue to rest. Each moment of evolution is a moment of re-creation; be-reshit.
Their real issue isn't with science, but with their straw view of scientists. They believe that the scientists are launching an attack on theology -- and so attack scientists. Aside from this being a logically inconsistent argument. "Science" isn't attacking theology even if individual scientists are. Science is attacking empirical truth, and if theological truths are going to contend in the realm of science, they have to be able to demonstrate causal connection and empiricism. If they can't do that then that is a failure of theology. Obviously there is something wrong with a conception of God that has no relevance to material reality. The attack on science is not a result of scientists waging war on theology, but of sectarians waging war on empiricism. Which very much represents waging war on reality. This is a very deluded course of action.
If there is science to 'intelligent design' then that science will be able to contend with scientists, because that is how they work. Many scientists, and even more teachers of science, are religious folks themselves.
Anyway this came up in the context of persons who were asserting a "rain test" of the validity of their Nichiren views, coupled with me listening to a lecture on the issues of the Science versus Creationism theology in the news. I didn't see much difference in the absurdity of the arguments. I'm still thinking about this subject so I'll probably come back to it later.
Posted by cholte at December 27, 2008 09:40 AM