RFEP allows Christians to postulate that
humans evolved through the formational economy -
that is through 'natural' evolution. This is what
philosophical naturalists already say. The difference
is that Christians can examine aspects of the
evolutionary trajectory - especially in
regards to human evolution - that philosophical
naturalists are not disposed to
examine. For example, is the religious impulse a
species specific trait - like language? If so, what
does that imply?
But EO Wilson, in "Consilience", does not leave out
a naturalistic conception of religion. This too comes
under the embrace of naturalism. Since his early
works, Wilson (among others) has sought to bring
biology, sociology, and every other aspect of human existence
under a comprehensive, atheistic, materialistic world view.
And Wilson is only the latest in a long line of 'Enlightenment'
writers with the same motive.
Of course Christian philosophers strive to do the same thing,
e.g. to embrace the stars and fossils within a 'theistic' world view.
We are both engaged in this 'wrestling match', each
trying to enclose and subdue the other.
At this postmodern point what intrigues me is not the continued
construction of my own world view, but the yin and yang of their
interaction on the wrestling mat.
physicist, webmaster, planner, etc.
Mail Code 724 Phone (301) 227-3831
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
9500 MacArthur Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817