There's a few problems here: Firstly, you're not talking about religion, you're talking about spiritualism.
Religion defines things: Adam and Eve, the great flood, Heaven and Hell and so forth. For many people these are not stories, not metaphor: they are cold, hard fact. It's exactly these people, biblical literalists, that seem to be the source of most of the outcry we here today. Spiritualism is looser, less defined. You can believe in "something greater" without needing a conceptual (religious) framework forced upon you. You can say "God put evolution in motion" or "God set off the big bang" and feel good about it. You can call God "she" with no problem. In other words spiritualism allows you to define your own personal compromise. Most "religious" people tend to fall between the two extremes: believing in God but not wholly in biblical truth. For example I know people who believe in both the facts of biological evolution and the facts of demonic possession but consider the great flood a metaphor. Many organized churches also make such compromises so perhaps my definition is a bit simplistic but the fact remains that the "religion" that's the major source of all the brouhaha lately is not compatible with the perspective you set forth. Secondly, the assumption that a higher power is required for the design we see is a fundamental issue. I'm pleased for you that you can look at the structure of the genome and see the hand of God... personally I don't. I see order. I see elegance. I see beauty enough to make a grown man cry but I don't see a God or indeed any need of one. I also see mistakes, ugliness, compromise and failure. I don't see a "design". A designer isn't required from what I've seen, only a situation. To the spiritually minded you can always find a place to compromise - a place for God to hide if you will. It's usually, I find, at the fringes of science. For example take the question "What caused the big bang?" Spiritualism is calmly assured of the answer: someplace, somewhere God is out there and he did it. Religion isn't interested in the question: they have a different question and the answer is inviolate. Science is fervently interested in both the question and the answer but demands that they be framed in a way incompatible with the other two. And that's the root of the problem it seems. To the atheist God is unnecessary; to the spiritualist God is infinite but indefinable and to the religious God is incontrovertible. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:189808 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
