In a New York Times essay, Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God, says religion and science can stop feuding if each is willing to change.
Religion must modify its idea of God to one compatible with evolution. God dropped the ‘algorithm of natural selection’ into the pond and stepped back to let it work out its own logic. Such a deity can comport with science.
Science, on its part, can admit the processes of natural selection may logically lead to a ‘higher purpose’ written into the structure of nature itself.
In his quest for harmony, though, it appears to me religion travels farther than science. Wright’s evolved idea of God is really 18th century Deism. At the end of the essay his preference for science peeks out:
Of course, religion doesn’t have a monopoly on awe and inspiration. The story that science tells, the story of nature, is awesome, and some people get plenty of inspiration from it, without needing the religious kind. What’s more, science has its own role to play in knitting the world together. The scientific enterprise has long been on the frontiers of international community, fostering an inclusive, cosmopolitan ethic — the kind of ethic that any religion worthy of this moment in history must also foster.
So I don’t know. Wright’s God seems small and unsuitable for worship. He makes me wonder if, in spite of intentions to do justice to science and religion, at the end of the day you lie down with one or the other.
His essay is worth reading. Let me know what you think.
It was a good attempt destine to fail. It has already been posted in Sam Harris’s http://www.reasonproject.org/ Hall of Shame. Wright wants to make peace between the science and religion. He also seems out of his element when he credits CS Lewis for the Moral proof of God. It was Kant. I think he makes the mistake of confusing agreement with peace. I don’t believe science and religion are at war, but certain scientists and believers are, and trying to get agreement from those two camps, which see each other as fools is doomed. The good thing is that each side is quite small, vocal, but small.
Interesting… scanning the comments on the article at reasonproject.org, I see Wright has failed to convince the readers there. They object to it on scientific grounds, as I found it lacking from a religious perspective. Thanks for the link, and for stopping by, Ernesto. Peace to you.
I agree. I think his analysis is objectionable on scientific and theological grounds. My impression is that he is a moralist. Not only is his conception of God small, so is his conception of humanity and life. Surely there is more to being human than morality. Surely too there is something of God, something important about life found in all of life, not just in humanity.
Thanks, Ken. Yeah, Wright didn’t whet my appetite for reading his book. It seemed for him the whole purpose of science and religion is to create a global, inclusive human community. I can’t speak for science, but I don’t think that’s the goal of religion — it’s more the by-product of the goal. Peace to you.