I have never touched on the subject of religion in this blog, mainly because the claims of the sects seem so meaningless and contradictory; but the sight of a Professor of Theology vapouring on TV recently on the subject of Darwinism has so enraged me that I feel I have to register a protest.
First to clear the ground. There are among many shades of thought two main types of thinking.
In logical thinking the process is to examine the phenomena, and to propound a hypothesis. The thinker then collects all the available data connected with the subject, and considers whether all or most of it supports the hypothesis. If this is so, then the hypothesis is accepted, at least for the time being, before it is supplanted by further information. A clear example of this kind of thinking is scientific study, though it is by no means confined to science. Its progress may be traced in the increased understanding of the shape of the universe provided by Copernicus, followed by Newton, followed by Einstein.
The other main type of thinking is religious. Here the process is to devise a theory. This may be the result of long hard thought, or it may just float into the mind - a process dignified as 'revelation'. Once the theory is felt to be acceptable, for whatever reason, a search is then made for all the data which may support it. Any contrary evidence is disregarded, or may be labelled as heresy, or may even be actively suppressed. The essential feature is that the conclusion must coincide with the original idea, and thinking proceeds backwards from this point. Ironically, a poet as deeply religious as T.S.Eliot summed it up perfectly - 'The end is where we start from.' The idea can then be reinforced by embalming it in dogma or holy writ. Men such as Galileo have been threatened, or tortured, or killed, for denying such embalmed chunks of prejudice. Darwin himself was inhibited for years from publishing the truth by the thought of the religious vilification he would have to undergo.
All this was brought to my mind by the antics of the theologian in seeking to explain that a belief in evolution was not incompatible with religion, since that although the irrefutable facts of evolution clearly show that much of biblical teaching is no more than fantasy, yet God had employed evolution as a tool in his creation of the world. This is to reduce the Bible to the level of a tale with coloured decorations.
How an apparently intelligent man could go about thus sticking plasters on a rapidly deflating balloon, when the increasingly obvious fact is that religiosity is merely a contrived, if fascinating, myth, and that the fundamental nature of the world about us, though terrifying in its complexity, is only to be understood by the gradual accumulation of carefully observed and collated fact, and not through a a cloud of vague and contradictory imagining, I find it difficult to understand.
But then, of course, he knew the answer was 'God' before he even began to consider the problem.
