Palin Doesn’t Understand Theology, Science

Posted by ( Lewis ) on September 05, 2008 at 11:10 pm

To Michael:

First, I have no interest in who supports you or their titles or any Nobel Prize winners.

I’ll be fair here and state what you are putting out is to me nonsense. I say that with utmost respect. What you are claiming makes no more sense to me than the Christian Trinity does.

I do not have your book and can only go by what others have written of you and their understanding including your supporters i have quoted. I have read your FAQ and website and have grave concerns with what you are doing. (More how others will misuse it.) You are not dishonest and have no reason to believe you have any bad intentions.

Again with deep respect what you are producing fits the definition of New Age religion, period. That is not an attack, just what I believe is fact. New Age religion is simply a syncretism of various philosophies and religious beliefs. That is all it means.

Here is the definition of syncretism as I use at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

Here is the definition of pantheism as I use it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

The Catholic Encyclopedia and I agree with them that Pantheism is just atheism. You clearly in my opinion and due respect promote a pantheism as per the definition I cite.

I’m well aware there a lot of conflict and gray areas in defining many philosophical and theological ideas.

In my view for example I consider Christianity and its Trinity a fusion of three differing and conflicting older faiths:

God the Father from Judaism.

The Holy Spirit from Pantheism

The Son of God from Gnosticism.

Go to Deut. 6:4 and it says God is one. What does that have to do with a Trinity?

The founders of Christianity did the exact same thing you did fusing differing things together.

I take a strict scientific and rational view here. I want a clear, reasoned definition. You simply redefine words including God into terms that have no relation to traditional definitions. That is what those with spiritual/mystical views do to explain themselves. That is not an attack, but an observation. 

Just because many atheists (those that reject the tradition definition of God or don’t believe in God at all) still have spiritual needs. That is what you supply.

The real effort it seems to me is to first destroy the old belief, then offer the “fix.“ 

Evolution is a process of nature just as the life and death of stars or when we mix the processes to produce an internal combustion engine.  I simply see no deity in car engines or moon rocks.  God doesn’t dwell in rocks or as a scientific process.  Calling a rock or the rain cycle God doesn’t make one a theist.

You said,

“Lewis, no, I have no interest in defending myself against your attacks.
Clearly, in your mind you are right…absolutely right.“

You don’t have to do anything and I make no claims of “absolutely right.“

I don’t know you, but from the outside I see a former disgruntled Christian out to destroy your old faith. You make your contempt of it very clear on your FAQ page.

You and your wife have put a lot into this and from what I’m reading you are not in it for the money. I believe you really believe it and I commend you both for your efforts.

But in your FAQ you make it clear your desire to drag it into the political realm and it does sound like another evil theocracy in the making even if you slip it past the Supreme Court. I’m sure you are a good man, it’s your followers misusing it that concerns me.

Your “theology” if you insist on calling it that has no place in a public school or science lab. That is my opinion.

I’m not just picking on you, I do this to a broad group of beliefs secular and religious when they cross into politics.

This thread started out as political attack on Sarah Palin by a group of people I know are hostile to traditional values/beliefs that do in fact try to use the political system to further their agenda. That includes the use of government coercion, etc. to achieve those ends.

The Unitarian Universalists like most “liberal” (today meaning democratic socialism) meddle into a lot of political issues. Because of that they deserve no more respect as a “church” than does Pat Robertson.

I know you operate out of mostly UU churches and they are promoting this here.

I consider any belief including my own being used in or for political reasons wrong and I will fight it tooth and nail. That’s to protect both the individual and the belief itself. 

What good is it I read your book and don’t understand in any real sense what you are saying?

I’ll be writing an extensive blog on you and it will not be structured as an attack nor is it a threat. I simply have an interest in these thing. I do want your side of this and to understand this to be fair and factual.

You may contact me directly at lewis@sullivan-county.com to avoid this chat board.

However it turns out my God (however defined assuming you even believe in an active God) bless you and your wife and best of luck.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Lewis ) on September 05, 2008 at 7:41 am

Sorry Chester, your drivel doesn’t cut it.  He is an atheist and New Age mystic and I stand by it. Those are his words and he knows it.

Or is it possible he is so confusing he audience misunderstands him?

Let me quote his own website FAQ:

“From an evolutionary perspective, nothing is more important than putting into place laws, taxes, and moral incentives at all levels—locally, regionally, nationally, and globally—that make it easy and virtually effortless for individuals and groups to do the right, just, ecological thing, and also make it easy and effortless for them to not do the unjust, un-ecological thing.“

That’s a police state.

to quote,

“Evolutionary spirituality is not about anything ethereal. And it’s not about believing in anything, otherworldly or not. Evolutionary spirituality is about being in right relationship with reality at all nested levels: within yourself; with all your relations: past, present, and future; with your world; and with the source, energy, and end of your existence…“

Total New Age drivel.

“The distinctions between ‘private revelation’ and ‘public revelation’, and between ‘day language’ and ‘night language’, have proven especially helpful in this regard. So too have the distinctions between ‘religious believers’ and ‘religious knowers’, and between ‘flat-earth faith’ and ‘evolutionary faith’.“

Figure that drivel out.

“Understanding the religious implications of evolutionary brain science and evolutionary psychology is truly empowering. Evolutionary spirituality, which is informed by these disciplines, offers lasting freedom from troublesome habits and addictive thoughts and behaviors. And it does so not by rejecting earlier ways of speaking about ‘our inherited proclivities,’ or ‘our unchosen nature,’ (such as ‘original sin’) but by validating such traditional language and reinterpreting ancient insights in light of what has been, and is still being, revealed through the empirical sciences.“

So when he uses words they are his own “reinterpretation” and it seems a product of his own self-induced “revelation.“

Right down your alley Chester. Just light up and off to evolution heaven you go to this new “ultimate reality.“

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Lewis ) on September 04, 2008 at 6:21 am

I used to go to the Holston Valley UU and while they are nice people, I’ll leave it at that. I thought it was a Unitarian Church and I was wrong. My response to Michael:

I don’t believe I misrepresent anything. Understand when I use terms such as “New Age” it’s a description, not an attack. Atheist is one that that doesn’t believe in God and redefining some physical thing God or calling an idea God is still just atheism.

From http://blog.creation.org/news-of-the-weird/100/rev-michael-dowd-preaches-there-is-no-god-but-evolution/

To quote,

“The Rev. Michael Dowd’s Dodge Sprinter van bears an image of kissing fish. The fish, labeled “Darwin” and “Jesus,” reflect his belief that evolution is sacred and that science and religion go hand in hand.

“I’m not into reconciling science and religion,” said Dowd, 49, a former believer in creationism. “If evolution doesn’t wholly jazz someone religiously, they should continue to reject evolution.“ Dowd, a pastor in the United Church of Christ, is the author of the new book, Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your World.

Since 2002, he and his wife, Connie Barlow, an atheist and a science writer, have lived on the road, sharing their perspective that an understanding of evolution strengthens, rather than undermines, faith.“

What is incorrect about this?

To quote one review of your book, “Dowd considers himself neither a theist, nor a deist, nor a pantheist, nor an atheist, yet considers himself all of the above.“

Utter rubbish. That is my impression when I read your site and I don’t play such silly word games. Going by strict traditional definitions, and to quote page 337 of your book:

“I cannot agree that “Jesus as God’s way, truth, and life” means that only those Christians who believe certain things about Jesus or the Bible get to go to a special otherworldly place called heaven when they die. I used to believe that, but I don’t anymore. In hindsight, I see that my old belief cheapened, belittled, and impoverished the universal glory of the Gospel.“

You clearly reject Christianity or have redefined it to some New-Age form. Why do you retain to title of reverend? By your own words you are a former evangelical. This is the same problem with the Unitarian Universalists that have rejected traditional Unitarianism, but want to retain the name to point to all the famous Unitarians to bolster their non-Unitarian beliefs. (They’re mostly Humanist, New Age, pagan) It’s a dishonest thing to do and confuses the public. Whether this is intentional I can’t say.

Tell us who David Sloan Wilson is. To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson

“His latest book Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin’s Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives attempts to give an introduction to evolution for a broad audience, detailing the various ways in which evolution can be applied to everyday affairs.“

It seems he is a big influence on you.

You claim you are not a pantheist (a type of atheism that claims nature is divine or mystifies Nature. That is there’s nothing beyond Nature.)

Let’s go to Amy Hassinger UU World Magazine Spring 2006 / 2.15.06 and to quote her of you:

“If we are to deepen our understanding of the universe or of God, if we are to change our collective behavior and our destiny, Dowd and Barlow say, we need a new story, a story based in scientific discovery, but also reverent of the awesomeness of the universe. A better metaphor for the universe, they say, is a set of Russian nesting dolls, made up of levels of what they call nested creativity: subatomic particles within atoms, within molecules, within cells, within organisms, and so on. Each level is uniquely creative, that is, has the power to bring something new into existence. Stars create atoms; atoms create substances like the oxygen we breathe; human cultures create art, religions, and technology. The largest nesting doll is God—or Allah, Adonai, Source of Life, Ultimate Reality, Nature, the Universe, whatever name describes the divine whole for you, the ultimate creative reality that includes and transcends all other levels of reality. God is not outside of creation. God is an integral part of it—in fact, is it.

In this metaphor, we humans are nested within that divine whole. We were not plunked here by a maker separate from us. Nor is our existence a meaningless evolutionary fluke. The basic elements that make up our bodies—carbon, calcium, iron—were forged inside supernovas, dying stars, and are billions of years old. We are, in fact, made of stardust. We are intimately related to the universe. As early-twentieth-century British biologist Julian Huxley put it, “We are the universe becoming conscious of itself.“

Huxley is an atheist. To further quote, “At one congregation, after hearing Dowd invite listeners to think of God as the “largest nesting doll,” one of the atheists came up and thanked him for “making it OK to use God language here in our church.“ (Yes, “God language” for atheism.)

Again to quote Rev. Dowd, “God is not outside of creation. God is an integral part of it…“ That is pantheism, a belief often favored by atheists looking for a religious emotional high. Did you (Rev. Dowd) or did you not make that/those statement(s)?

You suggested going to http://ThankGodforEvolution.com which I did and quoted you from it. You hold the traditional understanding of God (the one I referred to as the real one, not the one you invented) as trivial, etc. You said it and I stand by it.

You claim this is not New Age religion. Yes it is. It’s a syncretism of various beliefs, faiths, etc. That’s why you are so hard to define.

One person that supports your views is Andrew Cohen, another New-Age mystic. See http://www.andrewcohen.org/

What is New Age religion? See my page http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/new_age_rel.htm

You said, “The reason that 5 Nobel laureates and dozens of other scientific and religious leaders, including theologians, bishops, priests, ministers, rabbis, and other luminaries across the theological spectrum - from Catholics and Quakers to Baptists and Buddhists - have endorsed my book “Thank God for Evolution”

So what? Just as you reject God and redefined God to fit your pseudo-scientific beliefs, many of those in liberal churches have done the same thing. According to a recent Pew poll for example, 28% of those that identify themselves as mainline Protestants believe the Bible was invented by man. This is completely stupid in the fact if they believe the Bible a hoax, they can’t be what they claim.  65% of Reform Jews are the same way, just Jews by name only, nothing more just as Unitarian Universalists are not Unitarians. So that claim is nothing. One can find a number of people with titles to go along with you because like you their titles are just that. It’s called false authority and it’s dishonest.

All of these liberal groups have been in steep decline for years. Since they don’t function as religious institutions, why should they even exist? Title such as rabbi and reverend have become meaningless.

By the way, why do you use God with an asterisk? The footnote called out by the asterisk reads “Not any ‘God’ we may think about, speak about, believe in, or deny, but the one true God we all know and experience.”

Talk about utter rubbish. You are making up a god to fit your atheist’ beliefs. The claims of reconciling say Christianity with evolution means simply rejecting God and redefining a scientific process (that is under dispute by the way) as God. To quote a critic:

“Because Michael Dowd’s “God*” is definitely not the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. The author is clearly not interested in finding common ground between science and religion, specifically evolution and traditional Christianity. The author’s intent is to marry evolution to all the great religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism) by imploring each tradition to embrace evolution as our common creation story, the Great Story, he calls it. His vision is for each religion to reinterpret their various scriptures and ancient texts through an evolutionary lens, so that we all eventually become Evolutionary Christians, Evolutionary Buddhists, etc. Cultures that are in conflict today would achieve unprecedented harmony. Perhaps this is Dowd’s vision of “Heaven”.

The author (you, Rev. Dowd) asserts that “God” is simply our human, language-limited way of referring to the “Ultimate Wholeness of Reality”, or the “Supreme Wholeness”, or “that Ultimate Creative Reality that brought everything, step-by-step, into existence”. All those New Age type terms again like the ones I quoted from his website.

Let me be clear I hold Mr. Dowd no ill-will. If his beliefs give him comfort and a purpose in life, fine with me. Here are problems for me:

Christianity did a great service in de-mystifying Nature. This allowed the great scientific progress of the past several centuries. Every time we mystify Nature we go back to undermining science into mindless mysticism and pantheism of the past. The ancient Greeks invented science, but could never really use it because they mystified it. That is my opinion.

While I know you don’t intend to be, you are being dishonest in not making clear from the outset that you have redefined “God” into something the average person would never consider God and that reject all traditional definitions. That means put a disclaimer at the head of your webpage, etc. that makes that clear. Stop using the title of “reverend” as if you are still a Christian. This seems designed to sucker people in to see what you are really “preaching.“ I’m not a Christian and I make that very clear and state it on these boards, etc. “Evolutionary Christianity” is simply deceptive rubbish. You are not following Christianity and you darn know it.

Stop using the authority of people that don’t believe in what their title says. A Rabbi for example should believe in God. Moses, and Torah and disbelief in them makes his/her title a lie. Anyone is welcome to call themselves whatever they want, it just reduces all title to worthless.

You said, “I invite those who are curious to come see/hear for yourself”

Would you be willing to answer some of the issues I presented? I’d rather hear you in person, but will demand clear and concise definitions and not deceptive word play.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( johnshuck ) on September 03, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Thanks for the comments. Welcome, Michael!

Here is the schedule for Michael and Connie:

Sun. Sept. 7
9:45 Adult Forum with Michael at FPC.
11:00 Worship with Michael at FPC. 

Sun. Sept. 7
10:00 Connie leads services at HVUUC.
3-5 pm. Connie leads an educational workshop for adults and children at HVUUC.  See www.thegreatstory.org

Mon. Sept. 8
7 p.m. Michael leads workshop at FPC.

Tues. Sept. 9
7 p.m. Michael leads workshop at HVUUC.

All events are free and open to the public. 

For more details, articles and commentary visit www.shuckandjive.blogspot.com

Captain, my captain!  C’mon, now.  I responded to your last comment!  It does matter, especially in regards to science education in public schools.

Evolutionary Blessings,
john shuck

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( captainkona ) on September 03, 2008 at 11:42 am

Nice to see my old friend John Shuck stop by.
He doesn’t talk to me at his blog anymore, so here is just as good.

Good to see you too, Lewis my friend.

Guys, who cares?
Whether or not any of the theories concerning how life came to be are correct or incorrect is irrelevant.
Science requires the burden of proof because it’s science. It’s based on physical fact.
Faith requires only the heart-felt belief of the individual.

Both are valid, neither can disprove the other. So why do we have the argument in the first place? Are we endeavoring to understand both sides and find common ground, or is this just a big, redundant game of oneupsmenship?

Report Inappropriate Comment