Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: compromise on ID ... or not




I have two colleagues who are very religious. One is a Christian the
other a Muslim. One believes that Genesis is literally correct; and, he
expends a great deal of effort trying to show that the laws of physics
can be made compatible with that view. On the other hand, he considers
some other parts of the Bible as being not literally true, including
some the parts that have to do with how one should behave.


Well, all Christian denominations do this to one degree or another. The
mainline churches generally consider the parts of the Bible from Genesis to
the flood to be allegorical. And the book of Ruth is now considered to be a
moralistic story, but not actual history. Then of course all parts which
have to do with kosher law are always excluded as being inapplicable. Why,
one wonders, can some consider Genesis to be literal, and still eat pork,
shrimp... Now when I see someone trying to expend that sort of effort, I
tend to think that there are some aspects of higher level thinking that have
been missed. If you read Piaget, you realize that he categorized higher
level moral thinking. He found that the highest development of moral
thinking is based on reciprocity rather than "thou shalt not". Essentially
higher level thinking is categorized by more flexibility. When that is
true, one no longer views either Genesis or the laws of physics in
absolutist fashion.

The other colleague does not view Genesis as being literally correct,
but does view the exhortations toward moral behavior in other parts of
the Koran to be, if not literally true, essentially correct. He doesn't
let the creation stories in Genesis interfere with his scientific
research; but, he does lean heavily on the Koran to guide his personal
life.

Both Christian and Moslem faiths rely more on the later writings. The Old
Testament is the only truly common book, and while Christians generally rely
more on the New Testament, Moslems have the Koran instead. Also not all
Christians acknowledge the same books. Roman Catholics have deemphasized
the apocalyptic writings, while I understand the Orthodox have not included
them. Fundamentalists generally emphasize the apocalyptic writings and as a
result many consider us to be in the end time (even though there is an
injunction that you will not know when that is). It is probable that some
of Bush's actions are guided by this and that he considers himself to be an
agent of the coming apocalypse. BTW there are some Christian churches (not
Unitarian) which view virtually all of the Bible as allegorical with an
important moral message.


If I were going to bet on which one of my colleagues were going to make
it into heaven, if heaven exists, I would choose the second one in a
heartbeat!

As would many Christians, Jews, Hindus ...


Mark