|
levite, I think your answer is that of a person who doesn't have faith collapsed with truth. I think people who relate to their religion that way are in the majority, praise Allah. It's the other ones I'm concerned about, the ones who base their entire conception of the world on the inerrant truth of their book.
What I'm saying is... What if Paul's conversion on the road was a stroke or temporal lobe seizure or something, and Jesus was really just schizophrenic and was really some sort of pacifist Charles Manson? What if Elijah was just a really good magician? Then those who need a "real" foundation for their "faith" (despite that being an oxymoron) are in big trouble. And science is edging close to that. Which is why there has to be some sort of very shouty argument made for the "realness" of the god that people experience when their temporal lobe is stimulated. To be clear about this: many people in rigorously controlled scientific settings have left that experience very clear that they communed with a higher power. Nothing's happening that isn't explicable by electrical impulses in their brain, but they're SURE they've just shaken hands with the almighty. So... Where's your religious experience left by that? Whatever happens in the pew on Sunday--is that just neurolinguistic programming that has been refined over the centuries?
My point is, science is asking questions that make the "true" version of religion very uncomfortable. So they push back on evolution because it's concrete, and because there's no getting around "that's just your brain doing that". Once you're talking brain function, no subjective experience holds water anymore, because it can all be explained from inside the system you're housing it in.
|