You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

119 Comments

1. Joe Carson says:

   January 6, 2011 at 1:16 am

   1) What do you (any interviewee as well as Michael Dowd) think are chances (i.e. excellent, fair, poor or a number as 80%) that our children and grandchildren will get to die natural deaths or live in desirable societies, given present facts and trends on our earth?

   2) Do you (any interviewee as well as Michael Dowd) think “suffering for righteousness’ sake” would be an essential part of improving these chances?

   3) I perceive that many, if not most, participants in this series (speakers and well as their audience) are privileged to be members of secular or sacred professions for whom the most “unfair” thing in life is how “unfairly fair” life has been to them, relative to the 80 billion or so other humans who have lived or are alive today. Should they perceive a duty, when it arises, to “suffer for righteousness’ sake” by confronting evil, particularly institutional evil, in their chosen professions or other spheres of influence? If so, by what tenet of TGFE? If not, by what tenet of TGFE?

   Reply
   • liz mc carthy says:

     January 8, 2011 at 5:52 pm

     How is it that after all these years we as humans continue not
     to evolve am I correct? I live in Dublin and we have a murder almost every day. The animal world see more loving to their kiind!
     Thanks I love your Q and A Liz

     Reply
     • Paul Lucas says:

       January 11, 2011 at 4:44 pm

       Liz, this isn’t “evolution” in the biological sense. Biological evolution deals with the genetic changes in populations over the course of generations.

       What you are talking about is cultural “development”. Compared to previous centuries, we have reduced our level of violence. It’s still unacceptably high, but there has been progress toward a more ethical society. In religious terms, we have not attained the Kingdom, but we are working on it.

       Reply
       • Paul Stubenbort says:

         January 23, 2011 at 7:32 pm

         Even focusing on “cultural evolution,” one has to take into account the extreme barbarism of the 20th century which is probably greater than all previous one combined, e.g Armenia, WW1 and its collateral damage, the holocaust, WW2 and its collateral damage, genocide in Africa and Armenia, Hitler, Stalin, Vietnam and even Jim Crow in the U.S.Any “upward” evolution” would exclude most of humanity.

         Reply
         • Ted Davis says:

           February 1, 2011 at 6:40 pm

           Quite right, Paul, there is scanty evidence for any “evolution” morally. Our “fall” might not involved an historical first pair called Adam and Eve, but we are surely “fallen,” no less so now than then. IMO, Chesterton and Niebuhr were too right: the doctrine of original sin is the most empirically well grounded doctrine in all of Christianity. IMO, anyone interested in “evolutionary Christianity” needs to find a way to keep that key insight on their radar screen. If that can be done, then let it be done; if it can’t be done, then so much for evolutionary Christianity.
2. Rob Dillon says:

   January 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm

   Your discussion groups might be interested to read the review of “Evolutionary Christianity” just freshly posted on the website of the South Carolinians for Science Education

   Thoughts, responses, and replies welcome!

   Reply
   • Michael Dowd says:

     January 6, 2011 at 5:36 pm

     Rob, yes I read your review. Thanks! (Fascinating three hats you wear, or minds/eyes/ears you have, my friend.)

     A few things I’d like to offer in response…

     1. Contrary to what you wrote, I do not “reject random mutation plus natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.” I fully embrace evolution by natural selection, with no reservations. (I too was troubled with John Cobb’s characterization, as I hope was evident by my tone of voice at that point in our conversation.) My entire book is, I think, clear regarding the fact that I celebrate our best mainstream evidential understanding of reality (though I interpret the same in inspiring, faith-enhancing, bridge-building ways), but I especially invite you to see Chapter 2: “Evolution Is Not Meaningless Blind Chance”, which can be downloaded for free here.

     2. I do not see science and religion as doing or saying the same thing, and I certainly do not see rigorous science and religious faith (interpreted as belief in the primacy of unnatural/otherworldly entities, events, and places) as being compatible. Regarding most aspects of the science and religion issue, I think I’m pretty solidly in Barbour’s third camp: dialogue. If you’re interested (it’s okay with me if you’re not), my personal views are perhaps best articulated here, here, and especially here.

     3. Regarding teaching religion in science classes…No! In science classes, just teach the science! But I would argue that we do our youth a terrible disservice by not have a worldviews class or humanities class where we show them that the very same science can enrich and expand a multitude of religious and philosophical perspectives. (I think we should offer world religions classes and teach big history classes too. And as you can see here, or listen to here, Bill Gates agrees with me on the latter point. IHMO, every high school student should read this.)

     Genie Scott’s endorsement of my book says well what I was hoping for when I wrote it, “Dowd shows that there are many ways to be a spiritual person and that all of them are enriched by an understanding of modern science, especially evolution. This is a creative, provocative book that sheds light on just about any spiritual path one might be on. Many will find their faith revolutionized.” For similar sentiments expressed by others I’m quite sure you’d respect, see here.

     In any event, keep up the great work. And thanks for your post!

     Reply
3. Connie Barlow says:

   January 7, 2011 at 12:32 pm

   My suggestion for a question to be asked of any of the panelists derives from an insight I gained while listening to the conversation you had with Diarmuid O’Murchu. As I recall, you asked Diarmuid who he would talk with a young person struggling with meshing their faith with what they were learning in science class or on the Discovery Channel. He basically said that he would ask them what they feared — perhaps not directly, but gently probing to understand what it is about the naturalistic perspective that frightens them.

   So I would ask any or all panelists:

   Q: What is it about a fully naturalistic picture of the universe — both the outer world and the inner world of human nature in our own minds — that most repels you or that you find deeply unsatisfying or missing something vital, and for which your own Christian faith tradition excels in providing you with a satisfying, even comforting and hopeful, outlook?

   Reply
4. Ed Steinmann says:

   January 8, 2011 at 2:17 pm

   Michael,

   I have a question for anyone who would like to address it but first an observation from Abraham Lincoln: “It seems strange how much there is in the Bible about dreams. There are, I think, some sixteen chapters in the Old Testament and four or five in the New in which dreams are mentioned; and there are many other passages scattered throughout the book which refer to visions. If we believe the Bible, we must accept the fact that, in the old days, God and his angels came to men in their sleep and made themselves known in dreams.” (Jim Bishop, “The Day Lincoln was Shot” (Harper and Row, 1955) 54)

   My question: Nowadays, do God and hir (his, her, its) angels come to us in our sleep and make themselves known?

   (My answer is yes, God being, in part at least, Nature.)

   Reply
5. Therese says:

   January 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm

   Just a thought question: How to see ( interpret evolution) when viewed from a non-linear perspective? In other words, when going beyond conscious perception of time as we know it?

   All of these conversations have been most interesting to me.
   Thank you,
   Therese

   Reply
   • Mary Southard says:

     January 17, 2011 at 1:40 pm

     Hi Therese,
     Your question shows great imagination, the capacity to enter into the essence of things beyond our cultural linear orientation. and suggests a participation in the wisdom of indigenous peoples and mystics. It relates to some things that have occurred to me as I explor some of the endless details of how evolution happened.

     For instance, we’re told that all the protons that would ever exist were created in the fireball! Every atom within the billions of galaxies, our living planet, and my body(!) contains one or more proton…so “I was there” in the fireball! Linear time collalpses, and my origin is connected with all that is.
     Also, one can say the fire/energy of the fireball, the fire that burns at the heart of the Sun, the fire at the heart of Earth–that same fire burns in me…as the passion, longing, impetus for growth, as the love which is firing my life, actions, relationships.
     Examples like this from the story of evolution CAN HELP US discover our true nature within the Oneness of all that is…where our boundaries of time and space “collapse”

     Other examples come from what Brian Swimme has reflected on as “The Powers of the Universe”, those patterns, dynamics, which are at work at every level of the Universe/Creation, and within us physically, emotionally, spiritually…
     For example, the power of attractiion, which we call gravity enabled the early Universe to balance the power of expansion, it enabled atoms to form and stay together, and galaxies to form, and our solar system. That allurement is at work in every atom within us. It holds us (hugs us) safely to Earth. It allures us to others in friendship, it attracts us “calls us” to certain professions, and so on.
     May you (we) love our questions! May we live our way into the Holy Mystery which is drawing us . . .

     Reply
6. Holly says:

   January 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm

   I would be interested in knowing the most provocative question(s) a speaker has ever been asked – an unexpected question which caused the speaker to profoundly question his/her beliefs. Could the speakers also talk about how they sustained themselves during this period of uncertainty and how he/she may have changed as a result of the willingness to question, rather than defend, his/her beliefs. Thank you so much for this series !

   Reply
7. helen normandeau says:

   January 8, 2011 at 4:03 pm

   I have 2 questions for Ilia Delio, both came to mind while reading
   CHRIST IN EVOLUTION .
   - First, you refer to Panikar’s “christophany” in which he indicates that “each person bears the mystery of Christ within”. Is this so whether the person knows it or not?…chooses it or not?

   -second question: You say that Panikar “has found new meaning in the person of Christ”. Could you please say more?

   Reply
8. Linda M. Rhinehart Neas says:

   January 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm

   As a Protestant, raised Catholic with Jewish half-siblings, who follows Buddhist and Native American philosophies, whose life partner is a Baptist ministers son turned Unitarian, interfaith development is of great interest to me. Could you ask any of the panelists for me: -

   1. How do you see interfaith work as part of the evolution of religion? Where do you see it taking us?

   2. When teaching about our connection to God, I use the analogy of God being like a large bubble of oil on water. Shake up the mix and there are hundreds of tiny oil bubbles. Leave it awhile and you can watch the bubbles begin to reform into the large bubble.

   We are like that…all pieces of God spread throughout the world (the water), but we will all return once again to God.

   How do you explain to those who question an all-loving God that even those who have committed the most grievous wrongs can still return to the Creator?

   3. I believe that man has constantly been evolving. First, we evolved physically, becoming humans as we are today. Then we evolved intellectually, a la the industrial and technical revolutions. Now, we are in the middle of the evolution of Spirit, which has been in process for many years now. What are your visions of where this evolution is leading us?

   Finally, from my partner, Roger:

   4. Part the mythology of the Bible attributes to Jesus that “my spirit will not linger with a person forever.” which could be taken to mean that when a person reaches a point where they reject the spirit for the material world, the spirit of Love that is God is usually not found. Why as humans have evolved does the human species seem to own the peculiar rights to that occurrence? (For example we don’t seem animals hording wealth or killing other animals unless it is needed for survival.) Why is it common with people to “harden their hearts” to each other?

   Reply
   • Ariane Brunel says:

     January 14, 2011 at 2:09 pm

     (4) I see this difference between humans and animals as due to Free Will, on our part, which in turn leads to Original Sin–however it happened, and probably not as Genesis has it …This, in turn, leads to self-absorption, sel-centeredness, and a disregard for (or enmity toward) others. Animals do not have the capacity to do this; it is only when they are ill with rabies that they do evil things, such as killing for no reason.

     Reply
9. Aggie Lukas says:

   January 8, 2011 at 4:29 pm

   I find all of these discussions exciting and meaningful. We are the edge of an amazing new paradigm, and some of us have been moving toward new ideas related to Christianity/faith. I have recently published my book: “A Time For Angels” and I feel it addresses some of the more interesting spiritual experiences that are happening around us everyday. We are here to connect, to serve, to reach enlighenment. I applaud you.

   Reply
10. C W Spinks says:

    January 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    One of my own philosophical difficulties is the randomness of creation activities and the presence of mass extinctions during the long course of galactic and planetary changes. How does one reconcile the notion of a loving God with an evolutionary one that finds biological existence so easily consumed in great extinctions?????

    Reply
11. Larry Gilman says:

    January 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    I like Connie Barlow’s question for panelists, above. Here are a few triggered by thinking about it:

    (1) What, to you, is the most tenacious or troubling question that is raised by biological evolution (or the scientific world-story as a whole) and _not_ settled by your current stance? After all the reconciling and integrating and celebrating have gone as far as you know how to take them, what issue lingers? What is your most nagging, painful, or fruitful doubt? Or have you achieved a condition free of doubt?

    (2) As knowledge grows, does mystery shrink? Or is mystery not a form of ignorance? If it isn’t, then what is it?

    Reply
    • Larry Gilman says:

      January 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm

      I would like to add the following:

      (3) Recent research shows that a large fraction of the human genome, on the order of 10%, has been deposited through deep evolutionary time by viruses. Human and other genomes even contain “proviruses”, entire viral genomes embedded in our own DNA. Our human fabric has thus been woven not only by natural selection, genetic drift, and the other well-known mechanisms of evolution, but by infectious disease — and this in the most intimate and direct way possible. There is no such thing as humanness without disease; we do not come into being without disease; disease organisms are coded into every cell of us. What then is the meaning of “healing” in a Christian evolutionary context? Can the very notion of “healing” be made fully coherent? Can we be healed without ceasing to be human?

      Reply
      • Ariane Brunel says:

        January 14, 2011 at 2:14 pm

        (3) Very interesting; I never heard this before. But it is only when disease becomes manifest–when we experience discomfort–that we are in need of healing.

        Reply
    • Larry Gilman says:

      January 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm

      And the following (the server can’t handle so much text in one gulp, apparently!):

      (4) As a scientifically-educated religious believer, I have found through experience that the scientific and religious moods or habits of thought are subtly inimical: that the more time I spend thinking scientifically, the less _plausible_ religious forms of perception feel. The problem is not one of reason (I know very well that the scientific mode of knowing does not logically rule out all other modes) but of mood or disposition. The more one does science, at least in my own experience, the more the world feels like a machine. As one traces in detail the all-embracing web-work of cause and effect (and/or quantum funkiness) that, in science, the world _is_, adjurations to feel wonder, awe, and the like seem more and more affected, forced, tacked-on, trumped-up, a luxury to be enjoyed by those who never have to actually trace the web-work in detail, never have to rub their noses hard in the machineness of it all. The Machine is the reality, and we are part of it, machines within the Machine . . . that _is_ the workaday scientific picture, from cosmology to neurology. And this mood does not dissipate when conjured by vague words like “emergence” or “holism”, or when one reminds oneself for the hundredth time that science and religion can coexist peacefully. In Henry Thoreau and other authors, I seem to find evidence of a similar experience: a spiritual numbing that tends to increase with the arduous _practice_ of science (as opposed to ooh-ing and aah-ing over the groovy discoveries _obtained_ by science). I have tended to accommodate this discord by spending time first in one realm, then the other: alternately putting my attention on MacDonald and Merton, then on Futuyma and Heisenberg. Do you recognize this discontent? What, in your opinion, might its deep root be? What does it tell us, or what might we learn from it? Is it good, bad, both, neither, something else?

      Reply
      • Richard R. Powell says:

        January 8, 2011 at 6:05 pm

        Those are powerful questions. I would particularly be interested to hear the answers to the “what are your lingering doubts?” If someone doesn’t have any, that would worry me.

        Reply
        • Michael Dowd says:

          January 9, 2011 at 2:40 am

          Sorry to worry you, Richard, but I honestly have no lingering doubts. Truly.

          Maybe I’m just a big kid at heart. I’ve honetly never met a five year old (or even a 10 year old) with doubts. Since I’m not a religious “believer” (I have no need to believe in anything beyond what evidence supports), I’m not even sure what I would be doubting.

          Virtually everything I know inspires me. And the things that don’t, inspire me to be in action.

          Reply
          • Richard R. Powell says:

            January 11, 2011 at 5:03 pm

            Hmmm….well maybe I will have to do some soul searching on this one. I have always “believed” that doubt was a healthy part of life, the emotional juice behind good questions. But as I think more about trust and a self emptying God, maybe there is a concept beyond doubt which still contains a vigilance to error and faulty thinking, but without the fear component that doubt seems to bring.

            I also need to think more about your comment, “I have no need to believe in anything beyond what evidence supports.”

            There we are back at belief again. A concept for some dissection I would say; because I think everyone has beliefs about a bunch of things, in the sense of “shortcuts in thinking” or “summaries of previous investigation,” or “investments in an idea.”

            For example I believe in science but if you ask why I believe I would have to stop and think for a moment and would dredge up something about aspirin, airplanes, and alchemy. Science produced aspirin and airplanes and alchemy did not. Or I believe in the goodness of nature. And if you questioned me on that I would have to define goodness and nature and point to examples and give some sense of why I have confidence about it. Or in the negative I might say I don’t believe Jesus walked on water and if you asked about that I would have to talk about the investigation I did into the historicity of the gospels, the type of literature, probability, etc.

            I think as humans we create beliefs and then doubt them when a working belief doesn’t work anymore for some reason, and that process creates better beliefs, kind of like an earlier version of the hypothesis/theory/testing process.

            but I will try not to worry…

            Richard
        • Ariane Brunel says:

          January 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm

          Your Jan. 11 comment does not offer the possibility of a reply …so here goes: some Hindu holy men walk on water. I read about it, somewhere along the way, a long time ago; so I have no references. But everything is now on the Internet; so I imagine you could find it there.

          Reply
      • Bill Church says:

        January 9, 2011 at 1:28 am

        In response to Mr. Gilman’s post regarding his discontent with the loss of wonder and the fact that “the more one does science…the more the world feels like a machine.” As a scientist and follower of Jesus Christ, I would offer that the presence of a feeling of discontent is evidence that there is more to discover, that this feeling that “the data is just not making sense” is exactly the proof that while “the world feels like a machine” our interpretation of the meaning of that phrase needs to be re-examined. Upward!

        Reply
12. Don Smith says:

    January 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    One of the most important questions which the leaders on this forum have to address is:

    How does Evolutionary Christianity engage the secular culture of status quo i.e. materialism/consumerism? By this I mean: people who don’t go to church, people who really have little intentional interest in spirituality, etc… I understand the supposed “fact” that most seemingly secular folks are actually latent spiritual seekers, but I see little empirical evidence that indicates this is true.

    The followup related question is:

    How does Evolutionary Christianity become more than “preaching to the choir”? I love this stuff – I drank the Kool-Aid – I’ve read books by nearly a dozen of the people featured here – but I’m a distinct minority within my faith community and my “real life – out in the world” community. My personal effort to evangelize this material have been rewarding, enriching but limited to a VERY small percentage of the potential public, whether secular or churched. What’s the (to use a crass term) “marketing” methodology which will elevate this Evolutionary thinking to becoming more mainstream?

    Reply
    • John Wolforth says:

      January 16, 2011 at 3:59 am

      This is _the_ question. Marketing is an inexact science, there is no real answer except to keep telling the stories. The individual choice that we all have to make is; is it better to try to continue to affect change from within, or do we need to walk outside of our churches to make a differences. I have one foot in, one out at the moment. I still go to church, but I have told my community that I don’t accept the Apostle’s Creed or other such statements of faith.

      Reply
13. Irene Matz says:

    January 8, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    To any or all discussion members: Would you care to comment on the need or choice of the name Evolutionary Christianity? To what extent are you committed or limited by referencing a specific religion? When may that be or not be an irrelevant distinction? What are the implications for interfaith alliances by keeping that nomenclature?

    Reply
    • nic paton says:

      January 16, 2011 at 8:37 am

      I was interested in how Ted Davis #27 (If I recall) gave the title “Evolutionary Christianity” such a short dismissal. But while I thought that a bit abrupt, and possibly for different reasons, I would also tweak the semantics, in 2 places:

      1) Instead of “Evolutionary” I’d say emerging, emergent, or evolving, as that term appears too invested in one doctrine.

      2) Instead of “evidence”, I prefer “(observed) experience”, for me “evidence” is tinged with scientism.

      Reply
14. Van says:

    January 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    I am intrigued by the subject of “Intimacy with the Divine”. I am quite comfortable with engaging in a cosmic level discussion of the divine with far reaching notions, and worldwide implications but I have a much harder time integrating such experience with the day to day much less with the moment to moment aspects of my life. In my world I am seemingly programmed to notice conflicts and dichotomies and seek resolution. What I fail to see or ,better yet, abide in a sense of presence that illustrates a deeper understanding of a harmony that I have only in brief moments experienced.

    As old as I am, I feel like a child somewhat lost, and seeking without any sense of direction or expectation a way that is not predicated on problem solving but I believe may be more about discovering an underlying harmony that could exist and must exist if all other precepts that I hold on a cosmic level are indeed true.

    I recognize the value of gratitude and indeed I am constantly grateful and surprised by by the wealth of awareness that seems to be offered up to me daily. Yet, I wonder if I am fully open to all that is before me and how I might learn to channel my curiosity or attention that will acquaint me with a more intimate sense of the divine in each moment. Also, I would like to know better how I might temper the busyness of my daily life that will allow me to not only abide in a less materialistic orientation but also express from there in a richer way.

    I do not know if the intent of the discussion will attend to these questions of mine but The process of asking them has calmed me immensely.

    Reply
    • Richard R. Powell says:

      January 8, 2011 at 6:08 pm

      That question — intimacy with the divine — is also very engaging for me, i.e. What does an evolutionary spirituality look like?

      Reply
15. Richard R. Powell says:

    January 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    1. How do you handle the scientifically questionable aspects of Christianity that seem so important to many? Some guests have indicated that some of these are essential elements to their faith, but they all seem indefensible from a rational or scientifically honest perspective;.i.e. virgin birth, resurrection, supplication prayers, dualistic or triadic psychology (body, soul, spirit), miracles (walking on water, healing, raising the dead), afterlife (heaven and hell), transubstantiation, incarnation, divine intervention, etc.

    2. For progressive, integral, and emerging churches: There seems to be a lot of focus on what I call the “emotional empathic” side of church because, I guess, people’s main reason for attending church is related to various social needs. What about the intellectual needs? Who is doing theology (including new theory) in a post “the Bible is the word of God and Orthodoxy is unquestionable” world?

    3. Not much has been said about personal and social development. I personally think many people leave a church because they outgrow it and it doesn’t offer what they need for their next stage of development. I’m thinking of the idea that there are stages of development, including stages of faith. The most compelling models in this field are based on the work of Clare Graves and popularized by Don Beck and Ken Wilber.

    So, should churches provide stories, answers, and opportunities for each stage AND for transitioning from one stage to the next, or should there be a church for each stage — or subset of stages (which is what seems to be evolving)? The trouble with the “church for each stage” model is that family members would end up going to different churches.

    4. Why should I choose Christianity over other religions?

    and the corollary,

    5. What is worth saving in Christianity, what should be added, and what needs to go?

    Thanks,

    Richard

    Reply
    • David says:

      January 8, 2011 at 8:22 pm

      I would second questions 4 & 5, and expand on them — they been on my mind throughout this series. My experiences with Christianity have been (with one current exception) experiences of exclusion by Christians. (Or, as I sometimes say: “the world is divided into two kinds of people: the righteous and the unrighteous… and the righteous do the dividing.”) I see that many of the panelists have been marginalized or rejected by their churches, and some of the comments have shown that the guardians of orthodoxy are vigilant still. At what point do you say “evolution brings into being something that didn’t exist before, so we’re not going to call this Christianity, even though we are followers of Jesus and seek the Christ.” Heaven knows you’ve already got plenty of people telling you that you’re not a “real Christian.” Why not just move on?

      Reply
    • Ariane Brunel says:

      January 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm

      (1) There are different kinds of knowing. Psychologists have only recently acknowledged “emotional intelligence,” meaning the knowing of the heart. There is also spiritual or mystical intelligence, which to me is largely unrelated to scientific or intellectual perception. An article, last week, in The New York Times, mentions that the psychological community has greeted with “scorn and amusement” a recent study, published in a psychological periodical, that attempts to prove (via experiments) the reality of ESP. Yet, all of us, at one time or another, have had an experience of this kind, that could not be explained on the natural plane.

      Reply
      • Richard R. Powell says:

        January 15, 2011 at 8:02 pm

        I absolutely agree that there are different ways of knowing and that is a good reminder.

        Of course those other ways of knowing are not the ones that are causing trouble inside of me, it is the rational part trying to reconcile the conflict between daily normal events with the events that are said to be actual events, but which I can not accept without more evidence. I think I have a moral obligation to question them to avoid being part of reality obscuring.

        This is why Sally Morgenthaler’s introduction of the phrase, “mystical evidentialism” was so important to me because it seems to merge two ways of knowing without sacrificing the evidential part.

        Reply
    • Ariane Brunel says:

      January 14, 2011 at 2:28 pm

      (1) One more thing: I have a New York Times article (without a date) that is yellow with age–stating that according to Probability Theory, the probability that the Resurrection happened is something like 95%. I will check their archives, and hope that they go back that far.

      Reply
    • nic paton says:

      January 16, 2011 at 8:44 am

      (1) [DOUBT] “Miracles” – can we say that EVERY event claimed as miraculous by the mythic belivers in our midst, is explainable “purely naturally”? I think of people like Vineyard founder John Wimber who I remember for both his “supernaturalism” as well as his progressive psychology.

      Reply
16. Alan says:

    January 8, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    I’m intrigued by the title of Sr. Linda’s talk. I wonder how she addresses the problem that arises because we’re creatures trapped in a single moment of time, whereas sacraments (and really every other process) happens over time. My concern, as a Catholic priest, is that many people, when they celebrate a sacrament of any kind, believe that one minute they are not baptized or confirmed, let’s say, and the next moment they are. We seem to have little sense of the process involved in sanctification that happens the moment we are conceived and ends, well, who know.

    Reply
17. Joe Carson says:

    January 8, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Ditto in supporting Connie Barlow’s question.

    Do you (interviewee) believe in a personal God – one with sellf-awareness and independent will? Why or why not?

    Do you believe that God will, in some meaningful way, judge human beings, personally, regarding their thoughts, words and deeds – committed or omitted – during their pilgrimage in mortal life? Why or why not?

    Reply
    • nic paton says:

      January 16, 2011 at 8:48 am

      Yes! Judgement! For me, judgement forms a central part of my psychology – for each and every action and thought, I say to myself “God, all this consciousness will live for ever, and I will one day talk to you about this thing. But I look forward to that because of your love. And there wil be things I will regret, too.”

      Reply
18. Bill Church says:

    January 9, 2011 at 2:05 am

    A comment on Richard Powell’s first question regarding the indefensible, from a rationally or scientifically honest perspective, aspects of Christianity (afterlife, miracles, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, etc…) and then a question for the panellists.

    As our knowledge of the natural world is advanced through scientific discoveries, we are constantly seeing the “impossible” becoming “possible” and the “unknown” becoming “known”. In the last 30 years we have seen that skin cells can be turned into nerve cells and that a third allotrope (pure form) of carbon exists – diamond, graphite, and fullerenes. So I feel it is always necessary to qualify statements regarding the “absence” of a scientifically-valid explanation with the phrase “at the present time”.

    My question for the panelists: Given that scientific advances are achieved through the disproving of hypotheses, do you feel that the hypothesis “God exists” can ever be supported scientifically, and how does this reality impact on the relationship between science and religion.

    Reply
19. Frank Mundo says:

    January 9, 2011 at 2:41 am

    Michael,

    The evidence supporting the idea of evolution, and the idea that man is a direct descendant from one or a few primitive (single cell) forms of life is now absolutely “overwhelming.” Indeed the concept of evolution or transmutation of species was emerging prior to Darwin.. and by 1865 had been pretty much accepted by the scientific community. (Though admittedly “natural selection” was not.

    But the evidence, both in the fossil record now, and with incredible precision… the “molecular evidence” supports the “theory” of evolution with a huge array of “facts.” Irregardless of this, fundamentalist religions continue to insist that man was created “body and soul” by God.

    Why, in your mind, haven’t those with vested interests on both sides (Scientists and Theologians) spent time formulating ideas that support the “God concept” as coming into play at the key points of mystery – the initial spark of life and the emergence of man’s soul and awareness of himself in the universe… instead focusing on battling things out on the primitive levels that we do? Why does not the “shock and awe” of the “key points of mystery” suffice?

    I have to confess to having a profound sense of “pity” for the offspring of those people who believe in “God creating Man in his own image”. Assuming they don’t grow out of these nonsense beliefs.. they will never be scientists nor will they have the respect of educated and thoughtful people.

    Frank Mundo

    Reply
20. Carol P says:

    January 9, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Michael, Previously I had asked a question in response to one of the dialogues (I forget which now) that you said you would take up at some time. The question was something like: For a human it is part of life to experience anxiety or fear, and it is comforting to think of God as a PERSON, more than oneself, who could be helpful in difficult times. As a Catholic I used to think of “the Sacred Heart of Jesus” and the Blessed Mother (Mary, the mother of Jesus). My experience was one of trust and love, and I think the experience of love from the “more than” was real; although the images were not real, but inventions of my need, coming from what I had been taught. I would like to know how to relate to the “more than” in a person to person way with my developing appreciation of Evolutionary Christianity.

    Perhaps the speakers who might help would be MIchael Morewood, Richard Rohr, Joan Chittister, Gloria Schaab or Bishop Spong, and you Michael, as well as anyone else who could relate to this question. This has been an exciting endeavor, although so time consuming that I must admit I haven’t heard all the dialogues. I might have spiritual indigestion – like a buffet, so many good things, and I cannot digest all of it.

    Reply
21. Helen Lembeck says:

    January 9, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    First, THANK YOU for this incredible series!
    The following concerns can be addressed by anyone who feels called to answer or one whom you, Michael would suggest.

    1) What is the role, place and position of Jesus in this evolutionary context? How would you interpret the Resurrection and its importance for evolutionary Christians?

    2) This series is the first place I’ve come across thinking of God, the Supreme Being as also continuing to evolve. I guess I find it difficult to accept this – as it seems to lessen the One who put this all in motion. So if someone could elaborate on this concept I’d be grateful.

    THANKS again! Helen Lembeck

    Reply
    • Sandy Elsworth says:

      January 15, 2011 at 3:30 pm

      I concur with the comments and message of yours Helen, in particular the wonderfully explorative question of God/Reality evolving. There has been some comment relating the “God idea” to Experiential Reality, which is true to an extent, but there still seems a need in me at least for the final deep Reality beyond my understanding which is unchanging. But in the end, as we as create-ioners are growing our concepts will be growing so in some sense our “God idea” must keep changing.

      I would love to hear the panelists’ views on their sense of what is unchanging in the wider Reality.

      My other comment for a question relates to the wonderful science of Chaos. It is clear that Chaos is a natural state of the world, but that Chaos delivers forth Pattern in majestic diversity, which then devolves into further Chaos (Fractals etc). I just wonder how much of Genesis 1:1 could be understood by Ian Stewart/Stephen Hawking etc and other mathematicians as Chaos delivering patterns and perhaps, in my view, Christ presenting an entirely new Pattern out of the Chaos – the New Adam?

      Thank you so much for this series. I still want to explore links in the Kent, UK with anyone here and take it further.
      Sandy

      Reply
22. Sue Rolison says:

    January 9, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Michael,
    Thank you so much for the series. It has been a gift to me this holiday season. But like someone said earlier, I am in the choir and drinking the kool-aid. I think I am ready to move on. Diarmuid thinks that future faith communities will be small faith communities in the future. Do they exist already? What will ritual/liturgy look like? How can we praise and thank a God who is continuing to gift us with revelations of this incredible universe?

    Reply
23. Richard Renshaw says:

    January 9, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    I guess the questions I want to ask of the panelists has to do with the scientific evolutionary explanation of the history of the cosmos. This is something I have embraced for most of my life and that frames my faith after studying Berry and Swimme.

    First of all, it is obvious that the Christian Churches (at least and certainly my tradition — Roman Catholic) has not fully embraced all the implications of this story. So then, what do we need to pay attention to in order to bring this story to bear on our more traditional faith expressions and practices. What most needs to change?

    Secondly, the story itself, as I understand it, is an emerging one. So then, is there more than one scientific story of the universe? Can different stories be told that would be coherent with science?

    Reply
24. Gary Meade says:

    January 10, 2011 at 12:57 am

    In the seminar on January 25 titled “Evolving Church” I would like to hear the following question:

    Can you suggest any particular transformational practices that you believe are the most essential for an evolving spiritual faith? For I suspect that an evolving church is one focused more on practice than belief or knowledge.

    Reply
25. Gloria Smith Bragg says:

    January 10, 2011 at 3:34 am

    For the group speaking on January 29:

    I’m wondering if the subject of Stephen Hawking’s recent book, The Grand Design could be briefly discussed(?)

    Also, there are some recent comments from physicist, Michio Kaku, that might somehow be interwoven into this dialogue.

    I look forward to these sessions and would be glad to find/add more pointed questions on these subjects, but thought perhaps they may have already been considered…- gSb

    Reply
26. Gary Meade says:

    January 10, 2011 at 6:11 am

    I want to be greedy and add another question on January 25

    “As a parishioner of a conservative evangelical church, what can I do to gently introduce the perspectives brought forth here? For I have a deep desire to see the growth and maturity of a dynamic rather than static faith, one that can speak in the realm of current knowledge.”

    Reply
27. GaryME says:

    January 10, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    This is a question of the parternity of Jesus of Nazareth. Does Jesus meet the definition of, “bastard” due to customs of the period.

    Reply
28. Pastor Andy Schottelkorb says:

    January 10, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    I’m chewing on this difference between belief via evidence vs. belief w/o evidence, which brings to mind the biblical appearance of Jesus to the apostle Thomas…Thomas is invited to put his hands into Jesus’ wounds and Jesus says that those who don’t see and yet believe are blessed more so I think than those who have to see before believing.

    I’m interested in Michael’s and the panelists views on this tension, and how they might re-interpret or evolutionize(view thru evolutionary lens) this text to be more helpful for today’s believers.

    I think Thomas invites us to wrestle with the nature(s) of belief, perhaps Thomas is the father of scientifically-minded Christians?

    I believe the story is from the Gospel of John, which is a bit further removed from Jesus himself, but believe the 4th Gospel is important and could yield good dialogue here.

    Also Mark’s highlight of belief as in “I believe, help my unbelief” could help too, since a way God seems to be helping out can certainly be through nature and what is ‘seen.’ The Sacraments are the churchy example, whereas sciency ‘seen’ stuff has many small and large examples (DNA, viruses and bacteria, comets, galaxies etc. etc.) These don’t necessarily lead to belief though of course. More rambling than questions… sorry.

    Epiphany Cheers and thanks again for this forum of thought and faith.

    Reply
29. Paul Bruggink says:

    January 10, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    I am somewhat familiar with the arguments that Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design supporters make against biological evolution being able to explain the diversity of life that we see, and I am somewhat familiar with evolutionists’ rebuttals to those arguments.

    My question is what are the most significant arguments, if any, that secular scientists make against random, unguided biological evolution being able to account for our present biological diversity, and what are the rebuttals, if any, to those arguments?

    Reply
30. Cameron Freeman says:

    January 11, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    This is a question for John F. Haught or anyone else who wants ti answer it

    How does one make sense of the Darwinian evolutionary imperative that favours the “survival of the fittest” when Jesus Christ is consistently in solidariy with the weak, thw un-fit, the destitute, the poor, and those considered expendable by the powers that be?

    Reply
31. Ariane Brunel says:

    January 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    This is a question. I’m sorry it comes so late; and perhaps it was answered already.

    I have never understood how a God of love could create such a cruel natural order– where one species subsists by preying on another. As I understand it, the death, in most cases, is not quick or merciful–there is fear, and there is pain. And the fear troubles me even more than the pain.

    Reply
    • Richard R. Powell says:

      January 13, 2011 at 3:57 am

      Ariane,

      This is such a deep and important question which I think has troubled me the most all of my life. The traditional answer that “it is a fallen world,” or “God’s ways are not our ways,” or “It will all make sense when we see it from God’s perspective,” or “short term pain for eternity with God,” never have satisfied me.

      I suppose it might require a bit more than 90 minutes to answer though….

      Richard

      Reply
32. Cameron Freeman says:

    January 11, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Given that the truth of Christianity is not the kind of thing that can be redued to objective-descriptive statements of the scientific method, how does Evolutionary Christianity, with its basis in the objective evidence, scientific facts, etc hande the question of faith in its existential intensity?

    As Kierkegaard remarked “if God were a giant green bird, and regularly and conspicuously appeared thus in the town square, there would be much less skepticissm about him, but also much less passionate faith.”

    The degree of passion in ones Christian faith committment is inversely proportional to the degree of objective certainity… the movement of faith invlove ‘fear and trembling’ not the objective assessment of scientific data…

    Reply
33. Adam Sher says:

    January 11, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Historically, the Christian supercessionist theology was used to discredit (and worse) people of other faiths, especially adherents of the Jewish faith who were seen to inhabit an outmoded form of religion. Even today, in the popular confusion about the extra-biological implications of evolution, we see triumphalism and materialism infecting the popular mind – e.g. eugenics, so-called social darwinism, celebrity-worship, political and military dominationist paradigms – all in the pattern of the new superceding the old and rendering all else obsolete and valueless.
    What are your thought on how Evolutionary Christianity approaches the ‘evolution’ of religions and religious diversity?

    Reply
34. Don E. Bray says:

    January 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    Question for John Cobb, 01/22

    How does one put your arms around and find warmth from the divine spirit exemplified by our understanding of the scientific basis for creation?

    One might think that this question should go to the “Intimacy with the Divine” group but for a variety of reasons I am hanging onto John Cobb’s presentation.

    Reply
35. Paul Lucas says:

    January 11, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    I would like this addressed to “The Heavens Declare God’s Glory” panel:

    Why is it that Christians are seemingly no longer educating Christians on the concept of “secondary causes”?

    “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.” C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

    Reply
36. Paul Lucas says:

    January 11, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    I have two questions to address to the “The Evolution of Faith and Reason” panel:

    Why are not Christians, and scientists, more aware of their belief that all physical processes depend on God as sustainer of the universe?

    “The only distinct meaning of the word ‘natural’ is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.” Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion. Fontispiece, Origin of Species

    Does not creationism (including ID) depend on the acceptance of the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God? (the choice of “natural does not require an intelligent agent” in the above hypothesis) Put another way, does not creationism, with its emphasis on “gaps”, basically accept atheism as true?

    Reply
37. Linda Hayes says:

    January 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    Thank you Michael and Connie for this series. It is totally interesting to me. I don’t want to miss anything. I am curious about the role of contemplative prayer in the spiritual practice of all the ‘thought leaders’ participating. Do they feel that it would have an important place in the church that is evolving?

    Reply
38. Anthony says:

    January 11, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    The Catholic Catechism teaches (1008) “that death entered the world on account of man’s sin” and “from which (man) would have been immune had he not sinned” — a traditional Christian explanation of death, illness, Original Sin, etc. Yet we know that death, illness, etc. — preceded human existence and as some have observed illness might have been built into our genetic DNA inherited from our pre-human past.

    Can this foundational Christian teaching be reconciled with what we now know from Evolution?

    Reply
    • Tim Kunz says:

      January 13, 2011 at 1:15 am

      The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) is a study in contradictions. It recognizes Historical Critical Methodology as “the” Catholic method of interpreting SS, but NEVER follows this method. We cannot take the “STORIES” of creation and apply anything resembling history to these stories. They are religious stories told by persons who only had the genre of “story” to speak of God. Any attempt to reconcile Biblical narrative with the facts of history is an attempt to ignore two realities. The Catechism was an attempt by a small faction of Catholics to restore historical Catholic teachings to a modern setting with a foundation of sand. PLEASE, until we can look these men in dresses in the eye and recognize what they are lacking, we have no more contact with the real then they.

      Reply
39. Marisha Zeffer says:

    January 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    To January 15th panel: Is God evolving or just our concept of God? Or both?

    Reply
40. Don E. Bray says:

    January 11, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    For the Evolution of Faith and Reason session

    Several surveys have found that in America 4X percent of our people believe in Creationism (period for emphasis). This, to me, is a serious threat to our economic well being. Yet, when programs espousing evolution are given they either do not show up or they sit silent. There is no dialogue.

    What can be done to bring about dialogue and respect between the various faith groups?

    Reply
41. Lisa Ortuno says:

    January 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    I must start by admitting that I have only been able to listen to a subset of the speakers, so I apologize in advance if these questions/comment has already been posed . This series of talks is outstanding in its own parameters of discussion, that is, demonstrating how an understanding deep time, the beautiful fact of evolution and the great advances we’ve made in science through an evolving scientific method are revealing “God’s” Reality can enhance our faith, help us become more accepting of our own challenges and become more caring, compassionate human beings. While I agree this can definitely be the case, I, personally do not believe that this understanding is what will bring about real and long-lasting healing of society and the individual. I feel that, while understanding the facts and place of scientific discoveries is incredibly important for humanity and reconciling faith for some people, having a firm grasp of your spiritual authority, where it comes from, and acting from there, is much more important. For the most part, the discussions in this series have been within a context of Christianity. I understand that the speakers were chosen because of their mainly Christian (and scientific) backgrounds. From what I can tell, the pastors who have spoken, no matter how progressive they are, are still “Christian” in that they focus on the Bible and Jesus as a model in some way (whether they accept the traditional station of Jesus or not). However, from my perspective, when posing and discussing many of the deep, soulful questions that many of us have and trying to truly understand our nature and our place in universe, only considering the Bible and using a Christian foundation is, in some ways, like having an entire encyclopedia and only consulting the “J” volume. There are sacred writings from other religions that also provide powerful insights into God and faith and the nature of man. Each faith uses sacred writings as a source of authority. And by “authority,” I mean, it is believed that the writings are divinely inspired or the Word of God delivered to humanity. I think this is a very important concept for many people of faith. I wonder what is used as authority by some of the speakers in this series, (other than scientific evidence), as well as what their actual beliefs are in particular areas. So I would like to ask the following basic questions to those who have not made the answers clear. I am happy with a yes or no answer, when/if that is possible.
    1. Do you believe the Bible itself is the divinely inspired Word of God? (Regardless of what interpretations may be out there)
    2. Do you believe that the Bible should be our main source of authority when deciding how to live a good life?
    3. Do you believe other religious texts like the Qur’an, are also the Word of God? (If not, what do you think these are, really?)
    4. Do you believe in “God” as the creator of all things who set the Universe (and the evolutionary process on earth) in motion?
    5. Do you believe that human beings have a soul, defined as a something separate from the human physical form that was created by God and that will continue to exist after our body dies?
    6. Do you believe in an afterlife defined as the soul (in some form) existing in some capacity after we die?

    Thank you very much.

    Reply
42. RA Fisher says:

    January 12, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    This question is for both the “The Evolution of Faith and Reason” panel scheduled for January 18th and the “The Heavens and Earth Declare God’s Glory” panel scheduled for January 29th:

    How might we understand the role of divine causality in the cosmos – more specifically, divine response to prayer/petition or miracles (namely the resurrection of Jesus) within an evolutionary framework?

    Reply
43. George says:

    January 13, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    1) Our Universe has been going for 13.7 billion years to come to you and me, and now we have the privilege of a few decades of life. It seems reasonable to suppose that the Universe has at least another 13.7 billion years of evolution before it, during which it will become as different from what it is today as it is today from what it was when it was, say, a ‘quark soup’. What sort of input do you suppose you and I will have in that development? And if there isn’t one, what then is the point of this existence? This becomes an especially critical question if I only live for five minutes after birth.
    2) The Biblical God is portrayed as having much input in history, and a religious evolutionary theory would require that that input would have occurred throughout. Standard science can see no way in which God could have had a hand in this process. How does the panel envisage God’s engagement with evolution in a manner that is apparently undetectable by empirical observation?

    Reply
44. Ariane Brunel says:

    January 13, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    This is a question for the Live Seminar of Jan. 29th. It refers to the comment I posted on Jan. 11, as well as the one that immediately preceded it, by Cameron Freeman. Namely:

    How do we reconcile the mechanisms of Evolution–the Survival of the Fittest, the cruel order of the natural world, “Nature red in tooth and claw,” with a God of love and with the ministry and message of Jesus?

    Reply
45. Henry Schwarzmann says:

    January 14, 2011 at 1:04 am

    My question…. Given the great insight of all the great contributors to this Advent of Evolutional Xity……What can be done by local churches, various denominations, various religious paths, and individual faith / spiritual people (and scientifically savy folks) to promote the “bigger picture” of the need for dialogue ( plus conflict, independence, and intergration) and acceptance for welcoming the evolutionary insights into our theology, and understanding of human biology and beyond….challenging the concepts of those who continually resist,oppose or throw stones at those who promote this new and not-so-new thinking and even exploring a new language for the faith journey? Does it come down to making the witness as best we can, patiently educating and letting those who continually resist to stew in their own ignorance? What is beyond this “ADVENT” which will carry us to greater insights and the message of compatibility. ??

    Reply
46. George says:

    January 14, 2011 at 7:27 am

    1. It has taken the Universe 13.7 billion years to get to you and I now when we have the privilege of living for a few decades; it seems likely that this Universe will continue evolving for another 13.7 billion years at least, and that it will then be as unlike it is to day as today it is unlike it was when it was a ‘quark soup’; my question is – will you and I have a hand in that process, and if not, what is the point of our happening at all? This becomes a critical question if I only live for five minutes after being born.

    2) The Bible sees God continuously acting in the historical process; biological and cosmological evolution is an historical process, but Standard Modern Science has no need for God in that process; how can one picture God at work, whether by coercion or persuasion, in a way that is real but scientifically undetectable?

    Reply
47. Darach Conneely says:

    January 14, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    Denis Lamoureux and other speakers talked about being grateful for their sinful nature because these traits are what allowed our ancestors to survive and evolve. While that concept will seem shocking to many, I think it is closer to the Genesis story than we realise. Traditionally we read Genesis through a filter of Adam and Eve created perfect and our sinful nature is result of their sin, the blame is put on Eve listening to the serpent. But if you read Genesis the big problem was Eve’s own natural desires, ‘the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise’ Gen 3:6. But these were good desires, they must have been, they were desires God gave her when he created her. But however good the desires were in themselves, these natural desires came between her and God’s higher call to follow him.

    It is interesting how the story of the temptation in the garden is echoed as our common human experience in Paul’s own testimony in Romans 7:9 and in James’ description of how our desires lead to death James 1:14&15. Genesis is our story, we are all led astray when we follow our desires rather than doing what we know is right.

    I have a bit of a question about the idea of living in a world of supernormal stimuli. It certainly is a real issue and it gives us an important perspective on constant bombardment of sex and consumerism we face today. But if the story of Genesis tells us anything about sin it is that even in the earliest cultures, the simplest things could trip us up, whether it is tasty fruit someone else’s fruit tree or anger towards an annoying little brother. Supernormal stimuli are a real issue today, but they are not the only reason our God given human nature trips us up.

    Have you considered the parallel between Paul’s teaching that when we give ourselves to sin we become its slave, and the modern understanding of the addictiveness of pleasures and the way behaviour forms and reinforces synaptic pathways in our brain? Again really important and good features of human nature that have kept the species alive by reinforcing positive behaviour.

    Great series, thanks everyone.

    Darach

    Reply
48. Ariane Brunel says:

    January 14, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    I have one more question for the Live Seminars. But first, let me make it clear that I was able to listen to only a few interviews, and that my questions may have been answered already. My last one is: how do we account for the riotous beauty of Creation? Was it necessary to have a thousand different butterflies, a million different flowers? (Numbers approximate, of course …) I see it as God, the Greatest Artist, being carried away by the sheer joy of creatiing, and overdoing it, as we lesser artists sometimes do. But I imagine that you have a more complex answer!

    Reply
49. Ellen S. says:

    January 14, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    I really resonated with Paul Smith’s idea of visualizing God in 3D, the three ways we experience God and his rejection of the traditional notion of the Trinity. I would ask the panelists in the “Intimacy and the Divine” discussion whether there are other ways we can visualize our relationship with God that can be respectful of what we know about the Cosmos and yet allow ourselves (and our children, for heaven’s sake!) the ability to grow into a nourishing, honest, challenging personal relationship with God. These may help lead us to new artistic forms, new liturgies, new paradigms of faith work.

    Reply
50. Jason Derr says:

    January 15, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Michael -
    You speak often of relying totally on evidence. But does that not smack of liberalism where we must rely totally on evidence and reason in order to believe anything? It seems to negate inner dimensions, imagination and the ‘X’ factor calculating/anticipating the unknown).

    But we seem to have ‘systems of four’ which allow for integration of exterior and interior, and you have two of those systems represented on the panel. Can you get your panelists to speak to how Integral theory, Creation Spirituality, Weslyan Quadrangile (reason, expierence, tradition, and scripture) or the theopoetic method (theology/faith as a meeting of 4 tables – academic, worshipping community, hunger/desire of the poor and the poetic/mystic) would incorporate evidence in a way that does not fall into the ‘sin’ of liberalism (relying on reason alone in negation of body, soul, spirit and creativity)?

    (disclaimer: the Thepoetic method originates in my MA thesis from the Vancouver School of Theology, now published by the Progressive Christian Alliance as ‘Towards a Theopoetic of the Cross’)

    Thank You
    Jason Derr

    Reply
51. Jason Derr says:

    January 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Much of your talk in regards to nature and its impact on spirituality is in reference to ‘big nature’ – living on the land, hiking etc. It smacks of middle-clas opportunity. Not all of us can afford the constant contact with nature you speak of. So, I ask, how can we put an spotlight on the Urban Nature or Urban Ecology – either the presence of nature in city settings or viewing the city as ‘second’ or ‘repurposed’ nature.

    Reply
52. mar says:

    January 15, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    These broadcasts have been wonderful. Thank you so much. My question: if we go with the theory that the mission of Jesus was redemption, then where do we go with our sense of guilt…our serious regrets of the past? We are so used to surrendering it to the blood of Christ.

    Reply
53. mar says:

    January 15, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    CORRECTION: These broadcasts have been wonderful. Thank you so much. My question: if we go with the theory that the mission of Jesus was NOT redemption, then where do we go with our sense of guilt…our serious regrets of the past? We are so used to surrendering it to the blood of Christ.

    Reply
54. Gabrielle Cheung says:

    January 16, 2011 at 7:11 am

    dear michael and connie or person-in-the-know
    further enlightenment please!
    what i heard of sat 15th’s live conversation was deeply enjoyable. unfortunately, i missed the first part due to time-difference confusion on my part listening in the UK. i’m wondering if we can listen to the panel Q&As again and where to access them on the website please.
    many, many thanks and blessings
    gabrielle

    Reply
    • Michael Dowd says:

      January 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm

      Gabrielle, sorry for the delay. It’s up now, in the usual place: here (scroll to the bottom).

      Reply
55. nic paton says:

    January 16, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Forgive me Father for I have become complex! An interrelated and interdisciplinary set of questions around entropy vs. evolving complexity and love overcoming all, and emphasising the evidential view:

    1) (Astrophysics, in response to Connie’s “We are made of Stardust” hypothesis) (How) is it feasible for dust from exploded stars to re-coalesce via gravity? Does the maths add up?

    2) (Astrophysics, from Steven Hawking) How does an expanding universe hold together and continually create the conditions for life via gravity?

    3) (Biology, as expressed via Bill Bryson) Does natural selection not dilute rather than strengthen the gene pool?

    4) (Christian spirituality) How is it the gospel has continued to survive when coalesced/institutionalised religion has done so much damage to its reputation?

    5) (Technology, referring to Kevin Kelly #32, as well as “supernormal stimuli”) How is it that our technology has evolved to become a threat rather than an aid to our survival?

    6) (Integral thinking) What is the relationship between these questions? And how do these memes relate to them:

    - Evolution and a theology of as Promise (Bruce Sanguin, #2)
    - Brian Swimmes idea that the universe allures us
    - Teilhards assertion of the “omega point” drawing all things together

    Reply
    • John Champagne says:

      February 6, 2011 at 8:25 pm

      Dust blasted out of a supernova explosion would simply disperse, into the void of space, as it were, except that much of it will encounter other material. “Slam into other material” might be a better way of saying it. The shock waves from a supernova travel through cooler molecular clouds and may result in some rather dense regions that include some rather humid gases and oily, sticky dust. Remember that stars in the neighborhood of a molecular cloud can blow on it in a way that causes the material to clump or pile up over time. It is in this context that a shock wave from an exploding star could trigger a gravitational collapse of the material.

      Reply
56. Jim Zikos says:

    January 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    John Haught is an outspoken critic of what is known as “scientism,” whereas Michael Dowd recently debunked it on this blog when he commented on it. I’d like to see the two of them discuss this concept of “scientism,” and how/why they differ on it. But if that’s not possible, then my question to John Haught (January 18 panel) would be the following: Given the fact that Mr.Haught frequently invokes the idea of “different layers of explanation” for anything under investigation, wouldn’t he agree that a scientific explanation is superior to any other kind of explanation, given that philosophical and religious explanations can’t be verified most of the time, whereas scientific ones can?

    Reply
    • Michael Dowd says:

      January 16, 2011 at 6:02 pm

      Jim, regarding my own views on “scientism”, I recommend this, which I posted on RichardDawkins.net last September. (A few good comments there too, along with some not so helpful ones.)

      But even more so than the above, I especially recommend Susan Haack’s lecture and essay on “Six Signs of Scientism“. When you read, listen to, or watch this you’ll see that I easily steer clear of these six, as do most other religious naturalists (also here) and, indeed, most other leading science-oriented voices. I also recommend Susan’s book, Defending Science Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism

      IMHO, most of those in the liberal and conservative religious communities who cry “scientism!” have no idea what they’re talking about. A case in point is a recent article that my colleague Michael Lerner wrote in the Nov/Dec 2010 issue of Tikkun. I deeply respect Rabbi Lerner and admire most of what he and Tikkun and the Network of Spiritual Progressives stand for. But I personally feel that his/their editorial position on scientism is misguided. Their stance on this issue seems to me to be an example of liberal/progressive religious folk simply not getting a one-story universe, nor appreciating the fact that the issue is not religion vs. science. Rather, it’s what are we going to base our values, morality, and meaning-making on (i.e., where are we going to go for our understanding of what’s real and what’s important today): traditional, pre-natural stories/images/understandings, or evidence? (See here.)

      Words like “Spirit” and “God” came into use and gained their emotionally nourishing sense within a pre-natural, mythic context. They are inherently meaning-filled and interpretive terms, not descriptive ones. This is a vital distinction missed by most people in religious circles.

      In any event, I hope some of this helps. Thanks, as always, for your comment/question!

      Co-evolutionarily,

      ~ Michael

      Reply
      • Peter Gabel says:

        January 16, 2011 at 7:10 pm

        Michael…Are you saying we base our knowledge of what’s real on pre-natural mythic stories rather than evidence? Peter

        Reply
        • Michael Dowd says:

          January 17, 2011 at 12:27 pm

          No, Peter. Not necessarily. What I’m suggesting is more along these lines: human beings will always interpret and find meaning and derive values and moral understandings and principles from something. Until recently it was impossible to derive these from facts, from evidence, because such did not exist (see my aforementoned post.) It is painful for me to witness time and again you and Michael (and others in your pages) demolishing a “scientistic” straw man that hardly exists in the real world.

          Most of those whom you all criticize with that broad brush (which if I’m not mistaken includes me, yes?) steer clear of Susan Haack’s “Six Signs of Scientism”. Most of us, I believe, are simply trying to help human communities and nations ground their politics and policies on evidential views of what’s real and what’s important, interpreted in meaningful, inspiring, bridge-building ways. At least that’s what I’m trying to do!

          I sent you, Michael, and Dave Belden each a copy of my book, Thank God for Evolution, nearly a year ago. I’d love to see it reviewed in Tikkun — that is, without the charge of “scientism” being leveled against it. Because it’s not that. If you don’t want to review it, for whatever reason, I invite your radically honest feedback on the main program I’m now delivering in all settings, which I also delivered at the U.N. last year: “Evolutionize Your Life: Heaven Is Coming Home to Reality“

          Reply
      • Jim Zikos says:

        January 16, 2011 at 11:08 pm

        Michael,

        Thank you once more for your insightful resources. I’ll get through them as time permits. For the time being, I wonder if you’re being too easy on those who profess an exclusively evidential explanation of how/why things are. For example, in your book you praise “night language” and “private revelation” for their own explanatory power, and you interpret the Virgin Birth and Resurrection as powerful metaphors that profoundly relate to the human condition. Would those who profess an exclusively scientific, evidential worldview have any use for such unscientific, non-evidentiary explanations? My impression is they wouldn’t. Yet this is what critics of scientism complain about. John Haught for example speaks about “different layers of explanation,” claiming (as you seem to endorse in your book) that there are other, legitimate explanations for how/why things are apart from those we receive from science. In fact Haught’s theology in his book God After Darwin is based on insights that could never satisfy scientific scrutiny, yet to my mind it is a profound book. I once came across some remarks that Daniel Dennett made on kenosis, “the self-emptying of God” which Haught expounds on. Naturally Dennett could do nothing but ridicule it. After all, such notions can’t be verified.

        Anyway, for now I’m just interested in seeing how Haught and you would discuss this subject from your different perspectives. And as I said in the previous post, if this isn’t feasible to do in the panel, then I’ll settle for my question to Haught as I previously expressed it. If that’s not possible either, that’s okay too. I realize there are alot of questions for you to choose from, and perhaps I may be submitting mine a bit too late for this panel.

        Thanks again,

        Jim

        Reply
        • Michael Dowd says:

          January 17, 2011 at 12:49 pm

          Jim, science cannot possibly answer the question “What’s important?” But given that we humans MUST answer it, the question becomes what do ground our understanding of what’s important on/in. To my mind, if we don’t ground it in our best evidential understanding of human nature, death, and the trajectory of big history, we’re quite possibly screwed as a species. Unfortunately I don’t have time to write more now. Gotta drive all day.

          Reply
57. Brad McFall says:

    January 16, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Dear Dr. Roughgarden or others on the Evolution of Faith and Reason Panel:

    I read on-line that you, Dr. Roughgarden wrote in chapter two of “Evolution and Christian Faith”:

    “We inherit our bodies from ancestors who were also the ancestors of other species. We do not inherit our souls from ancestors”

    Does this mean we only have our souls on account of God?

    It seems to me one can posit one’s self-activity in such a way as Kant indeed suggested in his Opus Postumum wherein differentiating between plants and animals there can be a common soul aspect across Linnaean species and within Darwin’s grandfather’s “uniting thread” as to propagation (both historical figures cited by Kant) but because no one has worked out the philosophy of modern biology phonoromically with respect to Kant’s transition to physics no one (especially see Mayr’s view on Kant) seems willing to consider that souls may have aspects that may be logically shadowing indirectly substantive changes during the experience of phylogeny that moral practical man can make happen. There seems to be a possible much closer relationship between evolution and Christianity than is currently possessed due to less than precise emphasis on teleology.

    Reply
    • Connie Barlow says:

      January 18, 2011 at 9:30 pm

      Brad -

      I read your question to Michael and he broadened it so it could include all members of this second panel. But none of your own thoughts on this topic will be included, so I suggest you copy and paste your post here into the blogpage comments of Joan’s solo talk.

      Reply
      • Brad McFall says:

        January 21, 2011 at 3:08 am

        test

        Reply
58. Judith Ain says:

    January 18, 2011 at 4:12 am

    As well as revealing the wondrous way that the universe and human beings as a part of that universe have evolved, science and technology have leveraged our ability to do evil as well as to do good. The potential for human beings to use these enhanced powers to fowl our own nest and sow the seeds of our own destruction is exacerbated by our aversion to recognizing and taking responsibility for our own shadow. I have a series of questions about this problem, three about how science might illuminate the issue and three about how the Christian faith might illuminate it.

    Science:

    What does science tell us about how our individual and corporate psyches have evolved to include this blindness to our own shadow?

    How has this blindness served to help us survive?

    Does science offer us any insights into how we might evolve to acknowledge and take responsibility for our individual and corporate shadows?

    Faith:

    What does the Christian faith have to say about our relationship with our individual and corporate shadows?

    What is the church’s role in addressing this issue?

    Can you share any situations where Christian communities have modeled an ability to own their own shadow in a way that has been redemptive for themselves and the communities of which they are a part?

    Reply
59. Rebecca Ruggles says:

    January 18, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Thank you for this entire wonderful series.

    My question is: How can this discussion be taken out to a secular audience, where many people have given up on religion? How do we start a communal dialogue about spirituality that would be in tune with their appreciation of science? These people are not in church, so we can’t try to engage them there!

    Much of Michael’s concern seems focused on reaching fundamentalists and young devout Christians, those who are struggling from the starting point of faith. I think an equally important problem, and maybe a larger group, is those whose starting point is modern science. So many people are turned off by the church.

    Related question: What is it going to take for some of this marvelous discussion to seep into the sermons and prayers and liturgies of mainline churches?

    Reply
    • Connie Barlow says:

      January 18, 2011 at 9:09 pm

      Rebecca Ruggles -

      Great questions re: the wider movement of bringing evolution meaningfully into worldviews of all types, but this conversation is expressly about just the Christian aspect of / contribution to it.. If we stay focused on Christianity, this discussion can serve as a model for others to follow in hosting discussions on evolution and Islam, say, or evolution and religious naturalism. Engaging folks who have no foot in any religious door is a great topic for another, very different conversation.

      Reply
60. Richard Ohlrogge says:

    January 18, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Concerning the conversation of tonights panel I have the following comment/question:

    What is the meaning of a marriage between faith and reason at this moment in time as opposed to the evolution of faith and reason independently? Why is there such a focus on trying to find or define a relationship between the two? It is evident that religions are and will evolve to incorporate the meaning of the findings of science and science will continue to evolve a deeper understanding of that which exists and can be understood through a set of natural laws.

    It feels at times that these debates are focused on the fringe/extreme areas of thought and expression in these two areas. Shouldn’t the conversation be more directed to the manifestation of the evolutionary process in the context of human culture. Both science and religion are huge factors in culture and from the perspective of significant meaning, the truth lies in their independent, side-by-side revelation of consciousness and understanding and influence of personal meaning each in their own way.

    They are literally parallel processes that affect each other through the mental perceptions and making of meaning that the human soul is so good at – initially as a single soul and then through dialog into the cultural context. Stay within the realm of your primary universe view and don’t try to debate the right or wrong of the meaning of one with respect to the other. Debate is powerful within a context but this is one inter-related area that maybe mutual respect of isolation may be appropriate. A century from now we might find a union of the two through the natural process of human evolution.

    Reply
61. Steve Maynard says:

    January 22, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Gretta Vosper described how she was led to changing how she “did” church through the realization that people weren’t “getting the message” (in her church and 19 others she surveyed). Since her conversation on this program, I’ve looked at the website of West Hill United and seen the wonderful “VisionWorks” and other documents. They are clear “evidence” of a new consciousness arising in her community.

    This raises the question about what other “evidence” is arising in the experiences of people in West Hill United and other churches (e.g. those of Bruce Sanguin, Paul Smith, Tom Thresher, Ross Hostetter, and others)? How is Evolutionary Christianity making a difference at the individual and collective level? What is manifesting in the heart, souls, and work (both vocation and avocation) of the parishioners? How is the quality of their lives changing and in what ways? What are the practical impacts of this body of work for the participants? How are they living it every day, in every way?

    While the leaders could comment on this, it would be wonderful to hear some “testimony” from the participants themselves in this regard. I’m sure there are many extraordinary and exceptional stories. Even though we are still in the very nascent stage of emergence of this form of community, it may be informative and instructive to have some feedback from the people who are living it on the front lines!

    Any possibility of this?

    Thanks and blessings,
    Steve

    P. S. I’ve now completed listening to all 40 episodes to date. What a magnificent program! One thing I particularly appreciate is that I did not experience a sense of “diminishing returns”….each interview has provided something new, insightful, and meaningful. I will now (well, once the panels are complete), rest in the field and chew on the “cud”, digesting it with joy and delight! Thank you Michael – and Connie and all of the participants for your marvelous work!

    Reply
    • Connie Barlow says:

      January 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      Steve -

      Great background and questions! I am recommending to Michael that he lead off the entire panel discussion with this question tonight — for Panel 4 with Vosper, Sanguin, Lawton and others.

      Reply
62. Mario Zatti says:

    January 24, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    I refer to John Haught’s arguments and also to his essay on Teilhard and the Question of Life’s Suffering (Global Spiral, last issue). I do believe that Christian traditional theodicy has in fact abandoned Christ’s teachings (Gv 9, 3 and Lc 13, 4). I also agree that suffering in the form of natural misfortune, or even cruelty, cannot be understood as primarily punishment. Hoewer I think it could not be related to an unfinished universe, but rather to one created with an incomplete deterministic character in order to harb our living and sentient beeings, and particularly free will of human subjects. As Roger Penrose wrote, “…we as sentient beeings must live in a quantum world.” I have treated such problems also in two articles published just on Global Spiral ( A Natural Philosophy of Human Suffering; Psychism, Free Will and Chance).
    Thanks for your attention.

    Reply
63. Cat McGovern-Zlotek says:

    January 24, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    I would love for one of the panels to address the notion of “soul” and how some of these scholars now look at soul. I have heard your version, Michael, and am left wanting more. When I talked to other Christians about this new way of thinking, this ended up being a stumbling block for them to further investigation of these new theories. I would love to hear some of the Catholics (since I am Catholic) ideas on new ways to interpret “soul.” Thanks! Cat McGovern-Zlotek, Oregon

    Reply
    • Connie Barlow says:

      January 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm

      Cat -

      I’m adding your suggested to Q to the pot pourri of questions Michael Dowd will be drawing from for the final panel, number 6.

      On the matter of ‘soul’ — sometimes artistic answers may be more meaningful than rational ones. Here is how my favorite singer-songwriter, Peter Mayer, interprets ‘soul’ when one embraces the entire universe and its story as sacred ground:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxfA3pyZgI

      Reply
      • Cat McGovern-Zlotek says:

        January 31, 2011 at 8:28 pm

        Thanks Connie,
        That was beautiful! I like that concept of the part of us that is the whole, like a hologram, being the soul. Intriguing! I look forward to hopefully hearing more from the others. Thanks for a fabulous series of talks!!!
        Cat

        Reply
64. Peter Walsh says:

    January 25, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Dear Michael,

    Great Series!

    In recent years I have become increasingly convinced of the primarily holistic nature of the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist -and by implication Pentecost / Confirmation. And that we have lost sight of this with tragic consequences –both for our shared spirituality and for the welfare of the biosphere. Very, very, briefly I believe their language and symbolism is to be understood in the metaphorical and not in the literal sense -as promulgated by the established churches.
    I believe this is an issue of particular relevance to tonight’s topic of ‘Evolving Church’ but I appreciate it is broad enough to be of immediate relevance to any discussion falling under the general rubric of ‘Creation Spirituality’. Whatever the chosen context I would love if one of your pending panel discussions would attempt a response!
    I write as a ‘struggling R. C.’ (other terms might be ‘free-range’ or ‘Judaeo-Catholic’!!) domiciled in Co. Wicklow, Ireland.

    Congratulations on this wonderful project!

    Peter Walsh

    Reply
65. Barbara J Monda says:

    January 27, 2011 at 1:36 am

    Dear Michael,
    Question for live Seminar #6 Feb 1

    In the context of Evolutionary Christianity what can you/panel say about Gay and Lesbian Spirituality?

    As Religions and Biblical interpretation has been incredibly harsh to Gay and Lesbian people, they have abandoned Christian Spirituality even though Jesus had nothing to say about it (at least that we have written and available).

    I feel this in a great loss to all and feel this group, sorely abused, needs a sound and theologically based welcome to seek a spiritual life.

    What does your panel have to say?

    Thank you.

    And would any of your speakers be willing to write on this?

    Reply
66. Doug Sander says:

    January 27, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    I have been listening to the discussions on the web afterwards because I’m unable to listen live. Until the afternoon of today, Thursday, Jan 27, no password was needed to listen. I don’t remember ever having to create a password and don’t have it stored where I save all my active passwords. So my wife registered, in order for us to get a fresh start. Unfortunately, after registering, she was not offered an opportunity to create a password. Now both of us are stymied. Help, please.

    Doug and Nelda Sander of Stillwater OK. (We enjoyed meeting the two of you and eating downtown with you when you came to Stillwater.)

    Reply
    • Connie Barlow says:

      January 29, 2011 at 2:52 pm

      On January 27, everyone who had officially registered was sent an email From: Evolutionary Christianity, with the Subject: “Important: Your audio page password: Please read”

      So I suggest you go back through your emails to that date and find that particular one. That should be all that you need to do.

      BTW: The reason the password was instituted was that (a) the 38 core interviews, with free access listening, are over now. (b) More people have listened to or downloaded those audios without registering with us than those who actually registered. It is important to us to be able to access by email anyone who cares enough about this topic and this series that they want to download one or more audios — and the only way we can communicate with them is by having their email address, which is what we get when they actually register and login. We plan to keep the “conversation” going in the months to come, and we need actual email addresses in order to do that.

      Reply
67. Barbara J Monda says:

    January 28, 2011 at 3:23 am

    Dear Michael,
    I have listened to all of the series and want to THANK you for putting it on.
    I asked you to ask a question in a previous comment box on Gay and Lesbian Spirituality for Seminar 6 but since that topic has not been discussed in any of the Seminars, unless I blinked, I want the speakers of Jan 29 to address it also. With all the talk of inclusiveness and human kindness and an all loving God, I need to hear what this group has to say about the exclusiveness that disowns and condemns Gay and Lesbian people. Surely by this time Theologians and any thinking person must realize that the Bible condemns sex abuse and not Homosexual persons who are striving against all odds to live an authentic life and mandated by so many authorities, religious as well as civil, to be essentially unauthentic in their lives. How can holiness be phrased in terms of being unauthentic? It seems to me that Gay and Lesbian people must be true about who they are and behave authentically according to that nature. Sexual orientation is not a mistake or an evil or a sin. It is a reality! I want to hear how it is a sacred reality!

    Thank you.
    Barbara J Monda

    Reply
    • Connie Barlow says:

      January 29, 2011 at 2:43 pm

      Barbara – Great topic! I have put it on the list to be asked during Panel 6.

      Reply
68. Jerald Robertson says:

    January 29, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    My question is for Ken today who I rafted the Grand Canyon with this last summer –
    Heaven and Earth do not declare God’s glory, we do because we have evidence of it rather than a supernatural voice. If god is the universe, then he/she would be continuously interacting with what is. What rational, not wishful surmising, says god is outside the world? Is there still any value for that contention

    Reply
69. laura dulude says:

    January 29, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    HI Michael: re; the panel today, Sat. Jan. 29. I was wondering if you invited any women, scientists or theologians to participate in this all male panel ?
    second question: Is there a ‘personal’ God for any of these scientists and if so, how is this God experienced in there daily life, or even occasionally?

    Reply
    • Michael Dowd says:

      January 31, 2011 at 7:33 pm

      Laura, I asked all 38 thought leaders (10 of which are women) to tell me which dates they could do during the last half of January. Some were not interested in participating on the panels. Some, like Joan Chittister, had technological problems trying to skype in from a remote part of Ireland. The schedule worked out this way: 3 women on the first panel, two on the second, one on the third, one on the fourth, none the fifth, and one the sixth. It wasn’t planned so much as that’s just what emerged.

      Regarding your question about a ‘personal’ God, the thought leaders in this series are all over the map. For me, God is not so trivial as a person, but, rather, is a personification of Reality. So yes, I have a personal relationship to God. But not God as being; rather, God as the ground/source/energy of all being.

      Reply
70. Steve Maynard says:

    February 1, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Resolving the perceived “rift” between science and religion/spirituality may be one of those problems that cannot be solved on the same level in which it unfolded. Just as Gretta Vosper and others have suggested about having new vocabularies to support a church’s desire to become non-exclusive, there may be a need for new ways to express views about evolution. One that I’ve heard somewhere (linked possibly even to Chardin) is that evolution is a “condition”, not a “theory”….a milieu of existence. What other ways might we incorporate to “solve” this problem on a new level? Anyone have creative ideas on this as an approach?

    Reply
71. Camille Bunting says:

    February 1, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    Mike and Connie, thank you for doing this project. I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to the individual interviews and panels. It has been both inspiring and frustrating. The inspiration has come as I have heard others’ stories of discovery and awakening, and hearing that there is work being done to change the language of hymns and liturgy. The frustration has come with the frequent hearing of personal pronouns for God and a sensed evasiveness (from some) for addressing the need for a new language. It reminded me of why I lost my enjoyment of the book entitled The Shack. It was because God, who had been represented as a black woman throughout the book, turned back into a male when the protagonist was able to “believe in” God again. I sensed this evasion especially from Ted Davis. I would appreciate this being a point of discussion in this last panel. I know this is hard, especially when the Bible is our example.

    I am a native Texan, was raised a Southern Baptist, and was a fundamentalist until well into my 40s. It just does not compute, and it seems that our image of God is where a re-learning needs to start. The information about evolution seems to be a great entry point for that re-learning

    Also, I would like to hear from you, Connie and/or the panelists about thoughts regarding how fractal geometry might contribute or relate to an appreciation for evolution and spirituality.

    Thank you again for all the work you both have put into this project. It has been excellent!

    Reply
    • Steve Maynard says:

      February 2, 2011 at 12:53 am

      An interesting discussion that discusses our evolving images of God can be found in Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman’s book “How God Changes Your Brain”….they consider images of God from neurophysical, psychological, and spiritual viewpoints. See chapter 5 “What Does God Look Like?”

      Reply
72. Chris McKenna says:

    February 1, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    What are the panel’s thoughts about early and modern day mystics? That is, who do they consider to be a true mystic (Christian or non-Christian)? Do they see mystics as having a significant role and value in today’s world, e.g., illuminating a path for our souls through their wisdom, insight and communication with the Divine ( ex. Teresa of Avila)? Or are mystics obsolete in today’s techno-driven world? If there are modern day mystics, how are they getting their message out (technology?) Would any panel member consider the Earth, Nature, the Universe itself as a mystic from what it teaches us about God as lover and creator? Does any panel member consider themselves as evolutionary mystics or rather seekers?
    Thank you for a tremendous series. It has opened my eyes and stirred my heart.

    Reply
73. judy sharer says:

    February 2, 2011 at 1:23 am

    Please comment on the effect, if any, of contemplative prayer in the evolution of humanities’ consciousness.

    Reply
74. Di Shearer says:

    February 2, 2011 at 2:11 am

    I am newly pastor to a congregation of retired people iin a seaside town in South Australia AND a student of Ken Wilber through the Integral Spiritual Experience sponsored by Integral Life and iEvolve. i hold in tension my conservative upbringing, six decades of expressing Christian faith in new ways as my life matured and as social conditions changed. I have greatly appreciated this series. Thank you.

    Reply
75. Tim Kunz says:

    January 13, 2011 at 1:04 am

    Dualism infected Christianity from at least 1Cor 7 until about this afternoon. We interpret Jesus and Mary as “perpetual” virgins without the slightest credible record of either. Many sectarians have disparaged marriage and family as somehow less than Christlike. My sect, the Roman Catholics are by far the worst but not in any way the only ones to fail to recognize the biblical and evolutionary contexts from which monagamy developed.

    Reply

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

1. Evolutionary Christianity || Welcome to our Evolutionary Christianity Global Community, Please Introduce Yourself says:

   January 4, 2011 at 4:22 pm

   [...] Live Seminars [...]

   Reply
2. Evolutionary Christianity || MICHAEL DOWD: What’s Real? What’s Important?—Evidence as Divine Guidance says:

   January 25, 2011 at 11:08 pm

   [...] Live Seminars [...]

   Reply