tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post7004143925649101659..comments2024-03-26T14:20:38.103-04:00Comments on The Thought Criminal: The New Atheists Haven't Got A Prayer of a Chance Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-13226132938038547112015-06-03T11:13:04.494-04:002015-06-03T11:13:04.494-04:00"I also studied Theravada Buddhism which is e..."I also studied Theravada Buddhism which is entirely reticent on the question of the creation of the universe and God, holding those are superfluous to becoming enlightened."<br /><br />Lawrence Krause recently opined that religion was a 'precursor' to science (placing him on the cutting edge of the early 19th century). One can, as fundamentalists do, take Genesis 1 as a story about reality which cannot be gainsaid.<br /><br />But the more reasonable reading, especially of Gen 1 (more clearly so in Gen. 2, unless you believe there really was a "Garden of Eden" and a tree of forbidden fruit, a talking snake, etc.) is that it expresses the relationship between God and the cosmos, or, more properly, God and the world (the "creation").<br /><br />So, like all the scriptures (in my hermeneutic, anyway), it is about God and humanity and the rest of the world, and our relationships to each other, relationships understood both through God, and through being human, and being in and a part of, creation. What is, IMHO, superfluous to enlightenment is understanding precisely how that "creation" occurred. Gen. 1 is not about how; it is about why; and who. Who we are, who God is, and why there is something rather than nothing. But "why" in a sense which is not limited to the scientific realm.<br /><br />Just as why I like Bach and Beethoven and Anonymous 4 is not going to be found in science; and doesn't need to be.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.com