Morning Edition, May 23, 2005 · I've always liked the exchange featuring the excited young Darwinian at the end of the 19th century. He said grandly to the elderly scholar, "How is it possible to believe in God?" The imperishable answer was, "I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop."
That rhetorical bullet has everything -- wit and profundity. It has more than once reminded me that skepticism about life and nature is most often expressed by those who take it for granted that belief is an indulgence of the superstitious -- indeed their opiate, to quote a historical cosmologist most profoundly dead. Granted, that to look up at the stars comes close to compelling disbelief -- how can such a chance arrangement be other than an elaboration -- near infinite -- of natural impulses? Yes, on the other hand, who is to say that the arrangement of the stars is more easily traceable to nature, than to nature's molder? What is the greater miracle: the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?
The skeptics get away with fixing the odds against the believer, mostly by pointing to phenomena which are only explainable -- you see? -- by the belief that there was a cause for them, always deducible. But how can one deduce the cause of Hamlet? Or of St. Matthew's Passion? What is the cause of inspiration?
This I believe: that it is intellectually easier to credit a divine intelligence than to submit dumbly to felicitous congeries about nature. As a child, I was struck by the short story. It told of a man at a bar who boasted of his rootlessness, derisively dismissing the jingoistic patrons to his left and to his right. But later in the evening, one man speaks an animadversion on a little principality in the Balkans and is met with the clenched fist of the man without a country, who would not endure this insult to the place where he was born.
So I believe that it is as likely that there should be a man without a country, as a world without a creator.
5 comments:
Good thoughts. I do think that that your point surpasses the rudimentary Darwinian verses faith debate you began with; especially because evolution and believing in a Creator are NOT mutually exclusive to one another. Even when embracing the most extreme evolutionary views fair minded science makes a distinction between the scientific terminology of “random” due to immeasurable factors and the terminology of “accidents” that in reality are not scientific proof that there is no Creator.
Peace
James
lance...
"What is the greater miracle: the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?"
great question. i've been thinking on this since i read your post.
james...
great to hear from you! hope all is well in the dc area.
i don't think this is a post negating evolution or darwin's theories of evolution. from my understanding of the read, i see it more as a statement of the absurdity of claiming there is no creator via scientific thought/method. but lance can speak to that better than i.
brad
Yea…I kind of thought that was the direction Lance was going which is why I liked the post and thought it went past the rudimentary “either/or” debate that we so often typically hear. Ultimately I agree with Lance and think it is absurd to deny the Creator under the guise of “science”. I wasn’t trying to dispute what Lance said but expand on it to where it touches an area that I tend to get passionate about.
James
james,
as i read your first comment in light of your second, i realize i misread you. sorry about that. i'm certain it isn't the first time i've misunderstood, and i know it won't be the last:) peace man.
brad
Wow, you guys thought I wrote this? It's a cut and paste from NPR written by William F. Buckley. I appreciate the vote of confidence. Ha, take care, Lance
Post a Comment