Christianity is many things to many people – something I learnt the hard way after becoming a Christian, then a fundamentalist, a liberal, an agnostic/atheist and finally a believer in something a bit broader than the easy categories I used to see the world in. So what happens when a Pentecostal preacher falls in love with an atheist biologist? You get evolutionary evangelism…
Thank God for Evolution
…the Reverend Michael Dowd and his wife travel the USA preaching the Gospel, as updated by evolutionary biology. I’m no expert but personally I think it’s about time too, that someone embraced the commonalities between the Christian myth and the tale of creation told by evolution. While that might sound odd to you, consider the idea of “original sin” or “the flesh”, then consider the concept of “selfish genes” – either conceptual group implies some innate selfishness/imperfection within human beings, all creatures in fact, which works against the higher ethics we’re called to by ideals or God or group demands.
I’m yet to read the good Reverend’s book, but the few bits available online seem less theistic than most Christians would be comfortable with. Most aren’t easy with the idea of an impersonal cosmic process as “God” – and cosmic creativity, what Dowd wants badged as “God”, is usually seen as impersonal. Does it have to be? Well read Michael’s book and find out.
Adam,
I am touched by your personal account: it is eerily recognizable to me! (but hard to share with most people, because there is often so much prejudice, judgment and condemnation in ‘formal’ religions; people usually believe what they wish to believe and will then consider any deviating views as a threat).
BTW: you may know me from Paul Gilster’s Centauri Dreams.
Hi Ron
Happy to have you, though I am not as prolific as Paul when it comes to blogging. Sometimes there’s not much to say aside from the comments I make over on “Centauri Dreams” and other internet fora.
My journey of belief is not over by any means, but I think I’ve learnt what makes for good and bad ‘faiths’. One thing I have concluded is that any code of behaviour should be amenable to reason and live up to the Categorical Imperative of Kant. Anything less isn’t worth believing.
Hi Adam,
I fully agree with your view on faiths, behaviour and reason. Kant’s Categorical Imperative was new to me (I did an initial search, interesting).
Hi Ron
Kant was a creature of another age, so I probably have issues with some of his ideas, but the concept that a person should live as all should live makes a lot of sense – he really just rephrases the Golden Rule, both positive and negative versions. And that has been in use since Hammurabi or further back in time.