I read an article in today’s Chicago Tribune magazine called, “The New Theology”. The article’s topic was a class of scientist-theologians, people who have studied the intricacies and science of the natural world and saw overwhelming evidence that their religious beliefs were, at best, incorrect. They looked at evolution and didn’t see the careful, guiding hand of a god but saw instead the erratic, random influence of genetics, mutation, and adaptation. They saw that these views could not both be true. Evolution and science withstood tests of logic, reasoning, and physical evidence, but long-held religious beliefs no longer did. An example of one of the major discrepancies noted in the article is that, “if God designed every last element of life, that makes him minutely responsible for nature’s cruelty and failures as well as its beauty.” This sits well neither as theology nor science. As Jerry Coyne of the U. of C. is quoted in the article as saying, “… the only God worth believing in is one whom modern science has deemed implausible.” However, instead of abandoning their religion entirely (as many scientists have done) these “new theologians” changed the one thing that was in their power to change: their view of “God”.
The idea of changing a deity’s role in nature and creation is a fascinating one, with some pretty far-reaching implications for the religious. The article’s author, Jeremy Manier, did a great job of balancing the article between the religious and the secular, exploring both viewpoints thoroughly and, as far as I could tell, without bias. This is no easy task, considering the polar nature of the controversy. Several worthy points were brought up and they’ve been simmering in my brain all day.
A very interesting notion came up in this article, one that I’ve seen in many other writings discussing the gap between believers and atheists. It is the idea that both believers and atheists agree on what a god should be. From the article:
“For both camps, the only God who makes sense is one who designed all life with exquisite attention to detail.”
It is this fact that makes it difficult to label the debate a theological one. The major debate of what God should be like is moot. It almost seems as if some people believe in a god for the very same reasons that others do not, if that makes any sense.
More interesting still is the idea of changing one’s conception of a deity so that it can be reconciled with one’s point of view- whether that view be scientific or emotional or what have you. The idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing god is being viewed through every believer’s personal prism, and is apparently open to interpretation by that person. Some sources put the number of Christians in the world at around 2 billion. They may think that they are all believing the same god, but are they? There could be 2 billion versions of god in hearts and minds all over the world. Is everybody’s interpretation correct? Is nobody’s interpretation correct? I bring this up in order to say that if belief in god can be changed to fit the facts, than maybe we’re closer than we think to doing away with him altogether.
As I said, the article was well-balanced and as a source of information and public opinion it had a responsibility to be so. On a personal note, however, I find I have much more respect for someone who questions his faith, finds the answers in conflict with that faith, and is able to make the often difficult change within himself- not a change designed to indulge the things that he hopes are real, but to embrace and carry with him those things which are real, that which is evident to him. A person, in other words, who is able to set aside his hopes and fears in favor of the truth.
