want Fto1be3Robots your friend
PP y13 F 1
14
GRYP ’N PYP - PUBLIKASIE PUBLICATION OF SOFIA, THE VAN SKOOL VIRSOCIETY TALE NWUDIE PHILOSOPHY
Rediscovering God
I
Die evolusie van Darvinisme 8
Musings on Morality
10
n this article I will attempt to dissolve some of the conflict between science and religion. To some extent my writing was inspired by a recent apologetics conference held at the School for Philosophy. I will not name people, but this event made me realise that theology is getting it wrong; evidently we are missing the point on the most important questions in religion. How pathetic must your god be if your need to lie to uphold his image? This article is neither an argument for the existence of God, nor against it, as these are really futile arguments. Rather, let me start with the assumption, based on faith, that there is a God. We believe this blindly, and from here we look at nature and modern science, and attempt reconciliation of the facts with our faith. Either we will succeed in our reconciliation, or our assumption based on faith must be wrong. Such is the power of logic. It may seem a daunting task, because it is. But so was learning to walk, talk, read, write and think. It is fun being a child, the world being full of awe and wonder, simple certainty. Growing up is much richer though, it has more possibilities, real mystery, and is deeper in meaning. Children of God, let’s take the next steps towards a more adult relationship with God, let’s grow up. To prevent any counterproductive nonsense, let’s remember that it is fruitless to argue the science. There is no uncertainty in the theory of evolution, and perverting the truth by calling it relative will get you nowhere. It is very unfortunate that some of our closest religious affiliations feel there is a grand canyon between the theory of evolution and Christian belief, and
that the theory of evolution is being forced upon their children, making them choose between science and their personal beliefs. Of course this is silly. Their views are based on very inadequate understanding of science, as demonstrated by their interpretation of evolutionary biology as a science of a kind different from chemistry and physics. Rather, they mean, it resembles the study of political history. If they had even the slightest comprehension of the science, it would occur to them that even though no one has ever seen an atom, the atomic theory is solid. Alas, they don’t. It is laughable that they think the theory of evolution implies that their children are created in “the image of apes,” and that ape-like behaviour can thus