In what way can evolution add meaning to religion? - and vice versa

Faith & Science Conversation
21

If by “way of life” you mean a set of moral obligations and behavioral frameworks that leads to human flourishing, religion may be or attempt to be, but Christianity is not (channeling Bonhoeffer’s religionless Christianity). Particular behaviors and flourishing are important parts and themes of the Christian corpus but they are not its heart. Christianity, in its broadest sense, is a promise that there is a righteous God who offers mercy to sinners. What’s more, the history of the people of Israel demonstrates just how easily (contra Schleiermacher) the slide from life centered on the One True God (monotheos) is. Far from YHWH’s promises lending themselves to human logic, behavior, and sentiment (or survival for that matter; QED, the prophets), it seems humanity has a predilection against this God, his promises, and his people, overcome by nothing short of a miracle.

This strikes my ears as a question of justifications and so the following is my wandering down that rabbit hole. From Fleming Rutledge’s The Crucifixion, page 3:

“It pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe,” Paul writes. “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to gentiles… For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (I Cor. 1:21, 23, 25). The words here italicized are piled up by Paul to remind the Corinthians Christians of the scandalous nature of the faith they claim… for the “word of the cross,” in its very scandalousness, is the only legitimate ground for Christian confidence. Thus Paul, surely one who in his previous existence as Saul the Pharisee did not suffer fools gladly, robustly declares that he and his fellow apostles “are fools for Christ’s sake” (I Cor. 4:10).

I quote this because I worry - and it is not that you have done this, but I’m a worrywart so forgive and correct me if I’m assuming too much - by asking if there’s a way evolution can make Christianity more important we begin to slide into an attempt at self-justification via rationalism: “If I can empirically prove the Christian faith has lead to or leads to human flourishing then I can, in part, justify its existence over and against more atheistic/agnostic/non-Christian options.” Or, put elsewise, there is a risk of our thinking we can justify God and his laws/justify ourselves.

And so, if the question belies a concern/inquiry for God’s justice/justification/our justification as Christians (doing my best to remain on the topic haha) I propose a word of caution:

Even the faith of the “just who live by faith” is always a faith being tested. We cannot demonstrate the goodness and love of God. Believers especially cannot set aside the question, whether God is unjust. Because God’s love is never provable or free from doubt, believers live under testing and temptation. Faced with God’s hiddenness, they flee for refuge to God’s revealed promise, “the light of the gospel, shining only through the Word and faith.”… The skepticism of faith sobers down the forceful enthusiasm that tries to harmonize reality in the concept of unity, in the monarchical principle, for the cost of this is an ignoring of misery, injustice, and suffering of the world… “The light of glory shows that God whose judgment conceals an incomprehensible righteousness is of a most just and manifest righteousness. We can only believe this.” This “solution to the problem does not resolve our laments. It keeps them awake and also gives us a passionate hope than in the consummation of the world, God will finally vindicate himself and answer our laments in a way that leaves no further room for testing and temptation.”

-Oswald Bayer, Living by Faith: Justification and Sanctification, page 79

Let me know if this comes in contact with what you’re thinking. Also! Welcome to the forum! I’m new, too. It’s quite a party, that’s for sure.

A blessed Adventide to you and yours
J

3 Likes
22

I don’t have much to add beyond this, but can I say this is a great post–it’s great having you around here. Your comments have been really insightful and theologically rigorous, which is always refreshing. The part I quoted is something that’s been weighing on me recently. I’d love to have great arguments for God’s existence, empirical or logical or otherwise, but I need to remind myself that ultimately, apologetics aren’t for winning debates, they’re for spreading the gospel. Thanks!

3 Likes
23

I’m flattered and would say that if you wanted to add something you could have corrected me and said “that’s empiricism, not rationalism. You’re confusing your -ism’s even if the two aren’t mutually exclusive.” And I know the struggle/temptation/anfechtung you describe. Hence the perpetual flight back to God’s promise; his creative word. Here, sacraments and proclamation find a home in the Christian life. But that’s a digression so I’ll end by saying thanks again for the compliment!

24

Can you cite evidence for this statement, James? What I have read indicates that our Homo sapiens genome is essentially unchanged during the past 200K years, and that the sudden change that resulted in modern humans occurred in how the brain circuitry that processes information–an epigenetic change that took place ~40K yrs. ago. In my view, much of C. S. Lewis’ work can be interpreted within Teilhard de Chardin’s concept that modern humans have one foot in the Biosphere and one in the Noosphere.

[quote=“James_Duin, post:9, topic:22949”]
Always good to read C. S. Lewis. I think he was proposing that evolution produces unexpected new species and that Christians are in a sense a new species within Man. And that unlike natural selection causing some variations of DNA to be passed on with greater chance through the successive generations, the new mode of evolution be passed by [a ‘good infection’] (from another Lewis quote)

As soon as Darwin’s ideas took hold, most scientists decided that Lamark’s concept–that one generation could pass on ‘learning experiences’ genetically to the next–was obsolete. Of course that is largely true in the biosphere, but the important evolution that is taking place in humankind currently is in the Noogenes (ideas) passed so rapidly nowadays through modern technology. Currently humanity’s future depends more on the latter than on the former. In my view, anyway.
Al Leo

1 Like
25

Amen. And the greatest apologetic is the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in fulfillment of Scripture. This is the apologetic of the apostles, not the philosophers (or would-be scientists).

2 Likes
26

I hope you will take a few minutes to enlighten a total novice in the area of theology. I do believe that religion does (not just attempts to) lead to human flourishing and, furthermore, that Christianity does it best. While I do believe that there is a righteous God who offers mercy to sinners, I also believe that in the broadest sense He demands that each of us try to improve the condition of all mankind during our stay on this earth. In other words, I don’t see God making this marvelous Earth just as a sort of Test Track where our performance determines the one important decision: Do we deserve Heaven? because that’s what its all about. What am I missing, or where did I go wrong? Perhaps I should read Bonhoeffer before I ask.
Al Leo

27

To be honest, Bonhoeffer isn’t even all that good (says a kid who has no authority for making such claims haha). But he’s not beyond making some excellent points! I’ll spare you him and give you my clarification. There is quite a lot at play in your question. If I parse it rightly, there are themes of: new obedience (part of sanctification in the narrow sense), eschatology (end things; now and not yet), comparative religions (you make it sound like a gradient?), the role of the human will, etc. I’ll focus on two: (1) eschatology in the now and (2) new obedience.

(1) Eschatology in the now. There’s a hymn called “Heaven is my home”. This is wrong. Heaven is not our home. Our home is the “new heavens and the new earth” (Rev. 21). “I believe in the Holy Christian Church, the communio sanctorum, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” I confess that obedience and prosperity are undoubtedly limbs of the Christian corpus (to repeat myself from earlier). But again, I assert, obedience and prosperity are not the heart. When I deny that the most general (which I interpret to be synonymous with fundamental, if that’s not too far afield?) definition of Christianity is not human prospering, I am not aligning myself with an escapist theology solely focused on getting justified and then - forgive me - getting the hell out of here, everything else be damned. Rather! I’m saying justification (which has both eschatologically present and future implications) is the central datum and must therefore inform our understanding of human prosperity and new obedience. Speaking eschatologicaly, justification for Christ’s sake will invite us to try and live in the here and the now as if we were in the new heavens and the new earth. That is: to live with (very imperfect) eyes that see everything as grace; given by God (through many, various, and mysterious means and without our meriting it in the eyes of the Almighty). Which leads into…

(2) New obedience. The free justification (that is, the promise of an eternally right and just relationship with God in the new heavens and the new earth) won by Christ, that foundation upon which the Church stands or falls, enlivens and enlightens us in both the here-and-now and into eternity. The overwhelming majority of what enlivening and enlightening into eternity, the new heavens, etc. will look like and mean are not given and so I must resist speculation. However, in this life, being certain of one’s stance in the eyes of God (just/right/adopted/befriended by his kindness in Christ) enlivens a Christian to love her neighbor as Christ has loved her. Thus, a Christian seeks the prosperity of his neighbor (and himself, with neighbor in mind), understanding that to do so is to imitate Christ (Gal. 2:20). Not because she or he is convinced Christianity leads to the most prospering and best obedience, but because they are free to seek obedient lives and the prosperity of others (using their knowledge and talents, attempting to make the best choices), knowing their eternity is secure in God and no longer resides in their decisions (Col.3:3).

Maybe the Christian rendition of morality more than any other moral system does lead to a more prosperous and just society. But I wonder what metric you would use to measure it, what evidences you would have to take into account, and why it would be important to you. To that last one, Christians are just as sinful as everyone else and are thus just as in need of forgiveness. The only difference is that God has convinced them of their need and provided for them. Thanks be to God he came to save sinners and not the righteous. (Lk. 18:9-14)

I do wonder if the argument of these assertions was perspicuous, internally logical, and understandable? Let me know if you’d like clarification! Your question was excellently put and it got me to thinking. And of course, I’m open to correction (insofar as anyone is and isn’t, I suppose) and am happy to reflect on whatever you’d like to share or ask. My above comment by no means exhausts the topics. But I think they accurately and generally reflect the assertion that justification in Christ is the sole foundation which makes Christianity important (and distinct from all religion/s); everything else is peripheral (not to minimize it unduly).

2 Likes
28

Agreed; and only the Holy Spirit can ultimately witness to someone and show them the truth of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection–which is a great comfort because I know I’m terrible at convincing anyone of anything! But maybe one day I’ll get you on board with an historical Adam ;).

Also, I’m thinking getting Frame’s systematic theology book, but I was wondering if there was a better place to start with him. It’s always nice to have systematic book, but if I’m pretty well familiar with reformed theology, perhaps there’s a more specific work?

29

His systematic is essentially a distillation of his four-part series A Theology of Lordship: The Doctrine of God, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, The Doctrine of the Word of God, and The Doctrine of the Christian Life. His chapters in the systematic on Angels and Demons, The Church, and Last Things are about the only subjects not covered in the above books. So, if you’d prefer to have a more exhaustive treatment on one subject rather than a broad book of systematics, any of the above would fit the bill. I own The Doctrine of God and highlighted it nearly to death. Great book.

1 Like
30

@JustAnotherLutheran Thanks for your post! really insightful!

I definitely don’t want to go down that rabbit-hole, never trust a rabbit! I do think we can go further with evolution than just saying the truth claims of christianity and evolution are both valid, and truth cannot contradict truth! I think evolution should add meaning to Christianity and the converse as well. I changed the topic to be “In what way can evolution add meaning to religion? - and vice versa.” so hopefully tricky rabbits shall be thwarted.

In response to @Christy:

I agree that Christian cannot be explained solely as the penultimate result of biological evolution, or of human development or progress, but must be seen as an encounter with the Divine, and a truth given by revelation.

  1. So given that it is a divine truth that …john 3:16 and that God is a Triune Godhead.

  2. And given that we evolved and share common origin with all life, are dependent and owe are nature to other lifeforms, being as we would not have evolved the way we are without other life, and instances of a species not totally self sustaining individuals.

Maybe the only way to enlighten and fully live out the implications of 2) is through accepting and adhering to the implications of 1) and maybe that is a more active way to go about seeking unity and cohesion between the two ideologies.

In response to @aleo I did not have any other references for homo sapiens being genetically different from 200k years ago beyond that one site => http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm
was just trying to get at the point that while the biological differences are not significant, we are the same species as ~200k years ago, change to our genome is relentless, a fact of existence.

I would agree with that, not to familiar with Noogenes, but definitely will try and read more about it!

31

Thanks for the prompt and clear reply, JAL. (I think the “Just Another” part of your moniker is misleading. I’ll bet your understanding of your Faith is above average. But I guess “Above Average Lutheran” would be a put-off.)
To be sure we understand each other, we might begin by expanding on what each of us means by the words “prosperous” and “just”. By prosperous I certainly do NOT mean the type of ‘prosperity’ some megachurch pastors have preached to their followers, and most certainly NOT the prosperity evidenced by a three floor golden suite on the 67th floor of Trump Towers. The prosperity that I envision for the world that Christians should aspire to is a world free from preventable disease and grinding poverty; a world in which the brightest minds (male and female) get an education that enhances their ability to expand the frontiers of knowledge while providing the training that enables the rest of us to maintain a smoothly operating society and to take pride in that accomplishment. As for creating and maintaining a just society, let us be honest: Christianity (as practiced today) stands head and shoulders above Islam as practiced by the Wahhabism of the Saudis where half of the human race is not recognized as truly human. Not that Christian nations can rest on their laurels and act smug on this score.

Not long ago I went against my wife’s advice and began to discuss ‘science and religion’ with her best friend, a staunch Lutheran and a very good person. Her pastor was of a very conservative bent (Missouri Synod, I believe) and she firmly believed in predestination and the absolute depravity of everyone born into this world. She could not answer satisfactorily my question: “What motivates you to do the good things in life that I see you doing, since God has already decreed whether or not you are worthy of Heaven?”

In my humble judgement, the folks who are so motivated (and who are probably not all Christians) are those working for the Doctors Without Borders or The Smiles Train, or those defying the Taliban and vaccinating Pakistani children for polio. They are my idea of humans acting as Co-Creators with God the Father who, incidentally, did NOT create a perfect world In The Beginning (otherwise there would not be such organisms as polio, ebola, or HIV viruses.

I’m sure you can answer that, JAL; or tell me why the question is inappropriate. And may God’s blessing be upon you and yours during this holiday season.
Al Leo

32

Awesome, thanks! That’s really helpful.

33

The rate of mutation to the human genome may be continuing relentlessly, but our recent advances in medical science has enabled changes to our DNA that are intrinsically maladaptive to be survivable and thus become more common than they could be formerly. Genetic changes that cause diabetes is the most widely known, and the discovery of insulin and medicines for insulin control have allowed many diabetics to reproduce this gene and pass it on. (Previously they died before reproductive age.) And there are, perhaps, a thousand suspected genetic diseases that could not persist prior to the scientific advances made in the Noosphere. Are humans wise enough so that something like CRISPR will enable us to venture into genetic engineering and literally become Co-Creators with our God? Or is that just the well-paved road to ‘you know where’?
.[quote=“James_Duin, post:30, topic:22949”]
I would agree with that, not to familiar with Noogenes, but definitely will try and read more about it!
[/quote]
Sorry, but “Noogene” is a term I coined to distinguish it from the term "Meme’, used by Dawkins. Dennett picked up on that term and Wikepedia can lead you to a number of publications describing that concept (The Virus of the Mind) from an atheistic viewpoint. Susan Blackmore takes somewhat the same tack in “The Meme Machine”. I have tried to give this concept a Christian slant and weave it into the framework first proposed by Pierre Teihard de Chardin: The Universe started out as the Cosmosphere, followed 10 billion years later by the addition of the Biosphere, and just 50K yrs. ago by the Noosphere (realm of readily communicable ideas).

That, in a Nutshell, forms the foundation for my World View, or Veltanschauung as Einstein would call it. It ends up satisfying me, but I suppose ‘tricky rabbits’ could still find ways to burrow into it.
Al Leo

34

Without distracting from your excellent post, I would add that the current understanding of evolution goes against what I (and perhaps others) understand it is to be a human being. Christianity essentially teaches us to strive to imitate Christ, and that speaks to a human nature that has the capability to respond to revelation and God’s Grace. The notion of personhood, and what evolutionists say on what it means to be human, with a great deal of discussion and controversy (eg 98% similar in genetic make-up to chimps etc) which leaves many questions unanswered and perhaps works for materialists who could claim that our understanding of human beings is incorrect.

So to see the current version of evolution as adding meaning to anything seems to me to be a stretch too far. To argue for similarity from genetic studies, rather than to the stark and vast differences between chimps and human beings imo is a contradiction in itself. I think this relates to [quote=“JustAnotherLutheran, post:27, topic:22949”]
being certain of one’s stance in the eyes of God
[/quote]

as our self-identity is central to one’s stance in the eyes of God and man.

35

@JustAnotherLutheran

You are right about what Christianity is not, but incorrect about what it is. While the form of the faith is important, doing “good works”, the content of the faith is crucial. The content of the faith is Reconciliation to God and to others, which comes through the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Through the Cross human find Forgiveness, rather than mercy. Mercy is a one-sided action, but forgiveness must be accepted to be effective. Everyone has been forgiven by God for their sin through the Cross, but only those who have accepted this forgiveness so they have been reconciled with God and others through the Holy Spirit have been truly baptized ion the Spirit.

Sadly it is quite clear that much of conservative Christianity, Protestant and Catholic, has confused being anti-abortion or “Prolife” with being Christian. It is not, but politicians are using this legalistic faith to manipulate these people who think that they are following the Christian way to do their bidding.

The Church if it really wants to be the Church needs to wake up. Christianity is not a set of rules, however good they may seem. Christianity is the right relationship of people to God, to God’s People (which includes everyone) and to God’s Creation (ecology.) The good news of Jesus Christ is that this right relationship is not based on our efforts and abilities, but our willingness to deny our self-centered desires, accept God’s forgiveness, and follow Jesus.

36

And are there any “real, actual current research observations” in it?

37

What part of my presentation of the corpus doctrinae, with free justification as its heart and lifeblood and with acts of mercy and charity as its necessary fruition, is incorrect? You said I was wrong but I’m trying to see where the bone of contention resides. I do not deny its presence; I only want clarification.

This is half right and half wrong. Right: The gospel is that a right relationship to God is not based on efforts or abilities. Wrong: The gospel is that our relationship with God is based on “our willingness to deny our self-centered desires, accept God’s forgiveness, and follow Jesus”.

“it depends not on human willingness or exertion but on God, who has mercy.” Rom. 9:16. Our salvation is 100% God’s doing. Not our choice, not our good works, not our feelings, not etc. To claim otherwise would put the responsibility for our salvation on our shoulders and not on Christ; and insufferable burden. That being said, damnation is 100% our responsibility, so far as the Deus revelatus is concerned. (2 Peter 3:9) Here you will find denominational difference. Scripture speaks of a revealed God who predestines in a single direction (predestination to eternal life; single predestination); not double predestination and a God who says he determines from all eternity who goes into eternal death and who goes into eternal life (i.e. Calvin). We sit in the tension (the Crux Theologorum; why some are damned and others are saved). The only resolution for the one who wonders about his or her stance before God is proclamation: In the stead and by the command of my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Rom. 10:6-13, 17; I paraphrase: Do not pretend you can answer why some are saved and others are not, for that is to play God. But certainty of your salvation comes in the promise God which takes root in your mouth and heart. A promise delivered by hearing it promised again.) Our following and trusting of Jesus, the choices we make after we have been “buried with Christ”, our response-ability to deny our sinful desires are the fruit of this promise; not our doing but Gods. And with that I have run the tangent far enough! End of speech haha. May be a topic for a different thread.

38

@aleo and @GJDS

I will respond! but later on today.

In Christ
J

39

Thank you for your response.

Jesus: Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

Repentance is an act of the will, but it is not a work. Repentance is turning away from our will and the world and turning to God. It is a gift from God because God opens the door and make walking through it possible, but I have to walk through it.

It is not an evidence of my wisdom and strength, but an admission of my lack of wisdom and strength and my absolute need for God. That is the reason many people, in particular Euro-American males are not Christians because they cannot admit weakness, like the Donald.

Or to look at it in another way, God created us in God’s own Image. That means that we are made to love God and love others as ourself. However we know that we fail to do that so God’s Image in us is distorted. It can be restored and enhanced only through salvation through Jesus Christ when we are born again through the death of Jesus Christ and born again in the Spirit. When we say Yes to Jesus and No to ourselves we are not doing anything special or great. We are doing only what God intended us to do and created us to do.

What I am insisting on is that I do participate in my salvation. I have a choice. It is very one sided in favor of God, but it is a choice I had to make. I do not expect any special credit for it, but I am responsible for it. In fact saying Yes to Jesus means taking responsibility for my sins and sin as I have noted above. Saying Yes to God is taking responsibility for oneself, rather than trying to shift that responsibility to God or others.

Saying Yes to Jesus means putting God first in our lives. We must admit that there are times when we mess up because we do not understand properly what God wants us to do or we become distracted from God’s way. However if salvation is real, we believe that we can and will get back on track when we confess and resubmit ourselves. That is why we attend worship and share Communion to renew our Covenant Relationship with God and others.

This is the way that I understand salvation. I know that it is not the only acceptable way to do this, but I think that it is the best way. Thank you for opening the topic for discussion.

1 Like
40

Being in bondage to sin means that we cannot by our own reason or strength know, believe, or admit just how unwise, weak, and needy-for-God we are. As it is written “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside [in opposition to repentance]; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.” (Rom 3:10-12)

What then of St. John the Baptist’s words (Mt. 3:2):

Repentance does not save. Repentance is what happens when someone has been saved (saved = brought into a right relationship with God; repentance = turning from sin/unbelief and turning into the will of God/belief; the whole Christian life is one of repentance). Repentance is the fruit of faith (and certainly involves our volition, but it is a volition changed by God), and faith is God’s creation, not our choosing or deciding:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this [speaking of grace AND faith; the Greek is ambiguous] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works [e.g. repentance], which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Eph. 2:8-10, with a little commentary

So the whole of our salvation, from “stem to stern” as it were, is God’s doing and not at all ours at any point. Which is a happy thought, because it means no part of my salvation is in my hands. My hands which have this awful habit of muddling everything up and making me uncertain. Note that John says “Repent for/because the kingdom of heaven is at hand” The kingdom of heaven, in at least one significant way, is God’s promised fulfillment of his promises (and without the willing, working, or deciding of the people; and often enough, in spite of the willing, working, and deciding of the people). So the mission of the Church catholic has been to proclaim that God has forgiven all sins and is willing that none should perish. Those who receive/accept/choose to align with/trust this proclamation are those in whom God has worked such reception/acceptance/choosing/trusting. I think of those who received the crown of life in Revelation through their perseverance (faith). They cast these crowns down before the Lord because they know it was God’s work in them that they believed and persevered at all.

1 Like