Evolving Christians: Is Darwin Really the Enemy of Faith?
Concerning God and Evolution, there seems to be 5 primary positions;:
1. Atheists who feel that Evolution thoroughly disproves the existence of God
2. Atheist/agnostics who feel that Evolution has no bearing on whether or not there is a God
3. Theists who feel that Evolution has no bearing on whether or not there is a God
4. Theists who feel that Evolution is incompatible with the existence of God
5. Theists who feel that Evolution is further evidence for the existence of God
(Tell me if I missed any.)
I belong to the fifth camp. There is just too much cool stuff going on for it to be accidental. The more involved it gets, the more intricate and deliberate, the more it screams God. You could go insane contemplating the patience needed for such an inconceivable process. The creation of this universe has taken nearly 14 billion years and is far from finished. God as Master Chef, not short-order cook.
However, the Theory of Evolution does go against a literal reading of the Genesis creation accounts, and quite a few Christians have distinct problems with this. Even so, there are many more Christians who see no inconsistency between Evolution and scripture, even Genesis 1 and 2.
Genesis 2:7 states that “God formed man out of the slime of the earth” which, if anything, sounds more disgusting than saying that man and ape share a common ancestor. But, according to the Theory of Evolution, man and ape do share a common ancestor, a one celled organism that lived in the primordial “slime of Earth”. Most mainline Protestant denominations as well as the Catholic Church have been able to accept the Theory of Evolution as not posing a threat to their faith. Where atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists usually differ is over whether or not natural selection was random or instead guided by the proverbial Hand of Providence. We may never resolve that particular argument.
Now, we know that a lot of Christians have zero tolerance for Evolution (at least for Macro-Evolution) even to the point where they might say that one cannot entertain this theory and remain faithful to Christ. Personally, I could never see how this was the case. Why should my faith in Christ be questioned because I might see the logic in this idea of animal and human development? Certainly God is big enough to use Evolution to suit his plans and a metaphorical reading of Genesis can be consistent with current theories of cosmology as well as evolution.
Most of the arguments that I’ve encountered appeared to me as merely re-workings of legalistically literal interpretations of scriptures, coupled with a natural recoiling from the idea that humans may have descended (actually, ascended) from ‘apes’. Recently I’ve come to understand a much stronger Christian objection to the Theory of Evolution and it has to do with the prevailing conservative doctrine of the sacrificial atonement of Christ.
From their perspective, to accept Evolution is to, logically, dismiss the literalism of Genesis, and thereby the existence of the two individuals named Adam and Eve (although literal readings of scripture was not always the norm). For some Christians, to say that there was no original couple who ate the Forbidden Fruit also means that there was no Fall of Man, which then removes the basis for the doctrine of Original Sin. Without Original Sin we are left with no foundation for the Total Depravity of Man and consequently no doctrine of Election (at least for the Biblical literalists ). With no Fall, no Original Sin, no Total Depravity, then what reason was there for the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection?
B.B. Warfield the principal of Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921, himself a Calvinist, once said
“I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.”
So, one fairly conservative (by today’s standard) Christian has found no conflict between his faith, the Bible and Darwin’s theory. And I have heard some atheists say that they do not see Evolution as providing ample evidence for the non-existence of God.
I am not interested in opening up debate over the validity of Evolution, but whether the theory is detrimental to (or supportive of) the Christian (or any other) faith in God. Personally, if this theory were either conclusively proven or thoroughly debunked, it would have no bearing on my beliefs.
Where do you stand?
Well said. The Bible is not a science text book and does not pretend to be. The Bible implies that Genesis was written down by Moses and addressed to the largely uneducated, recently liberated people of Israel after their escape from Egypt, although it probably expresses traditions told among the people for generations beginning with Abraham.
Does it really follow logically that evolution negates the Fall? Who were the first humans? Are Adam and Eve really out of the question? The Fall is fundamentally spiritual, not biological.
Welcome faithfool. No, I don’t think it logically follows, but I think that for some fundamentalists it logically follows.
I personally don’t see any support in Genesis for the “Fall”, and I do see Adam and Eve as allegories for the early human race. Who were the first humans? I guess only God would know, but I would imagine the main requirements would be self-awareness coupled with a sense of morality.
If that is the case, then perhaps Adam and Eve were not ‘human’ until they fell, because they did not seem to have this awareness. They only understood rules, which they inevitably broke.
Christian said:
1. Atheists who feel that Evolution thoroughly disproves the existence of God
Any atheist/agnostic who makes this statement is a FOOL!
I have NEVER met anyone who would have the temerity to make such a definitive pronouncement.
I represent position #2.
R.
Well, there are a lot of fools out there. But I would never consider you a fool, Robert. In fact, when writing # 2 , I was thinking of you. I’m really somewhere between #3 and #5 (without being #4). Does that make sense?
Christian,
This is an interesting topic. I posted a bit about Vance McAllister’s continuum of belief here. He lists eight categories, ranging from Flat Earth Creationist to Theistic Evolutionists. As a progressive creationist, I would fall into your 4th category and his 5th.
Could God use evolution? Sure, he can do whatever he darn well pleases, but there’s no need to invoke evolution to explain creation, and no credible evidence that he did so.
Peter Enns, though, took quite a bit of heat for his Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which suggested that we tend to look at Genesis (and most of the OT) through a 21st century lens and thereby come up with some pretty whacked interpretations.
It’s all an interesting scientific and theological discussion, but it has little bearing on our call to spread the Gospel.
Christian said:
….Does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense because it’s an intellectually honest position to take.
I don’t think the acceptance evolution sheds any light whatsoever on the God question. If I unpack both of our positions , I notice how similar they are.
Science is about searching for truth but in practice it’s more about eliminating falsehoods.
R.
What about dyslexic agnostics who question the existence of dogs?
You already answered this. Yes, for some Christians it is detrimental.
I guess my question is “so what?”. Do I feel the need to prove them wrong… or prove you wrong for that matter… or Robert?… nah.
My feeling is that like Creation, it’s a theory that can never be conclusively proven so why sweat it either way.
Fun topic…let’s just pass out baseball bats and have at it! Heh. I’m just teasin’.
There’s one thing that is indeed happening; there are in fact some atheists that insist that if naturalistic evolution can prove where all of life came from (including abiogenesis somehow), then that disproves Christianity specifically (not if there is a God or not). Most often, these are the atheists that use evolution to proselytize their beliefs.
Now, I’m not dogmatic on this issue; but I do believe that if someone is going to interpret Genesis as something other than literal, then it needs to line up accurately and logically. For example, if God creating Adam from dust out of the ground is a metaphor for evolution, then how did He make Eve? The metaphor does not continue on in the same manner. Weighing the evidence, scriptural, scientific, etc…. I lean YEC, though not precisely in line with those like AiG on some things.
In a general sense I’m definitely an ID supporter. In fact, I just wrote a bit about it today: http://christianscribbler.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/thoughts-about-ecological-biodiversity-and-id/
Would it have a bearing on my belief one way or the other; no. I don’t believe Darwinian Evolution is a good scientific theory to begin with, but if it miraculously became objectively supported, it wouldn’t make me lose my faith in Christ or God in general.
Great thoughts! I have been labeled worse than a heretic for telling those from my former “church life” that I don’t think the theory of evolution is an abomination to God in the least.
# 6. Theists like myself who believe that creationism and evolutionism are both a part of Gods plan and each is understood only to the limits of man’s finite intellect. God will (and has/does) reveal more of the mystery, as He deems necessary.
Stay tuned for the rest of the story.
#7 Theists who don’t really give a crap about the ‘how’ related to our origin, but are more concerned about the ‘why’.
#8 Transcendental precambriologist antinestorian anseladamites. We believe that creation is but a black and white photograph, projected from multiple video projectors, suspended in space since 14,000,000,000 B. C.
We follow the teachings of Nagle Kuhsink-Simpson, who was denied tenure at the Equatorial Institute of Eqiuine Interest and Osteopathy (EIEIO) for deseminating the theory in a presentation to elders of the ruling church body. Dr. Kuhsink-Simpson wrote his findings in an article published in the 75 annivesary edition of the Journal Tihsllub. When the elders found out, the kindly old professor was forced to clean out his office, and was escorted off of the campus by armed security guards.
Today, he can be seen at the Orange County, California fairgrounds, discussing Alien Spore theory, and supports himself by selling chamois and car polish.
I had a similar situation when I wanted to join the church (for what reason, I don’t know). To join, I was required to assent to all things in the church constitution. I said I agreed with everything except pre-trib and 6 day creation. I had a secret meeting with the elders–in which one of the elders told me “it’s for the children” (or some such thing) in regards to why the church requires 6 day creation and nuttin else. Sadly, I shamed Luther and caved in, signing the company line to join the church.
Now, I have to say it is all a mystery. I like parts of many views–except evolution. Maybe I’ve been brainwashed by the likes of Henry Morris, but I still don’t see the mechanism of evolution–unless God placed it in the DNA of His creation. Maybe I like Intelligent Design but I’m not too crazy about Phillip Johnson, although Michael Behe seems engaging.
Sometimes I can’t help myself, but I’m sitting here in the shadow of my diplomas, just ecstatic over the whole thing.
So ….?
No patrons of Ken Hamm’s ‘Creation Museum’ in Kentucky?
Nobody who watches the Flintstones as a documentary?
pity!
R.
Gosh, just got back from my night gig so haven’t had a chance to join in. A couple of things:
Steve, I’ll check that out. I figured you for a #4. Care to expound?
Buddy, you missed my point. My question was not if evolution was detrimental to anyone’s faith, but rather how some of you might respond. As per your response, you never used to be socavalier about evolution. Just a couple of years ago you were quite opposed to it. You may not give a ‘crap’ about it now (which I seriously doubt, considering the tone of your response) but for many people it’s worth discussing. Not curious as to our origins?
Net – I don’t quite get what your are saying – both Evolution and Creation? I can buy that unless Creation denies Evolution (or vice versa). Explain please.
Kliska – that is a niggling little point, isn’t it: abiogenesis. I would like to hear Robert’s take on that. BTW – which ‘number’ are you?
Mark – been there, myself. But lacked the cojones to speak my mind.
Zoolander – did you remember to take your meds?
Flintstones as documentary…..Ah! I get it. Humans with dinosaurs. Funny, but …
Ken Ham. Arrgh. Ever heard of Kent Hovind? Double arrgh.
OK, so far the consensus, outside of Steve, is that evolution is irrelevant to faith. Which means the Christians who have responded (outside of Steve) do not hold to the doctrine of original sin. Correct?
Kan Hamm….Kent Hovind……hmmmmmm K & H….
I know both of their works very well….
How’s prison life treating you Kent!
Those two bozos are the living embodiments of the straw men ID’ers & YEC’s we naturalists create!
With friends like those two ….literalistic Christians don’t need enemies!
R
Christian if I may….
Kliska said:
there are in fact some atheists that insist that if naturalistic evolution can prove where all of life came from (including abiogenesis somehow), then that disproves Christianity specifically (not if there is a God or not). Most often, these are the atheists that use evolution to proselytize their beliefs.
Kliska, there is very important distinction that needs to be made and it’s one that many Christians, and some under-educated or misinformed naturalists, just can’t or wont wrap their heads around:
The Theory of Evolution says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how life got started.
The Theory of Evolution deals with one thing….an explanation for speciation meaning the diversity of life that we currently know on the planet Earth.
Contrary to what deniers will tell you there is ABSOLUTELY NO GREAT CONTROVERSY amongst scientists as to the validity or the essential premises of the theory. 99.9% of the worlds scientists accept Darwinian Evolution as the correct explanation for how life came to be in its current form. There are more dissenters in the field of Relativity.
That said there is plenty of work to be done. Not everything is understood. That’s why scientists who work in this field still have jobs!
But the general mechanisms of random mutation coupled with natural selection are FULLY accepted.
Now….as to where life came from……get ready
THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.
and you know what …..there NEVER maybe.
Abiogenesis is the theory that the chemistry of life originated on Earth.
Panspermia is the idea that maybe the chemistry of life arrived from elsewhere….
draw whatever conclusion you like….
Scientists who like this theory think organic chemistry may have arrived on cometary bodies that impacted Earth during its formation. Recent probes that have examined cometary bodies have show them to be filled with organic compounds
I find the idea of panspermia compelling because it makes a biology lab of the whole universe!!!
If it’s true it means that there may be lots of life through out the universe that has the SAME chemistry.
But in the end we are still left with the same question: From where did it originate?
Draw your own conclusions….
Ah, panspermia. What do you make of Francis Crick’s version of that theory?
And even though I said that this wasn’t where I wanted to go with this thread, panspermia generates even more questions, doesn’t it?
Ken Hamm actually has a few intelligent points. However, his sarcasm is a bit much to bear, and detracts from his scholarship. I saw another one of his folks, in person, who gave a lucid and intelligent presentation on creation science.
Hovind? We saw his “Creation 101″ tapes (or some such name) and these were also pretty well done–until he starts down the Rockefeller-Standard Oil-Flouride is Brainwashing our children route. At that point in the series, he ought to be tied in a straight jacket and taken to an assylum (in a padded cell–Blue Room, Chris–next to mine).
The power of science, and of creationists, can be understood in Hobbes
“On Man” or de homme. In this treatise, Hobbes makes the argument that
effects from unknown causes can be used to have power over people. Creationists point to Genesis and say the Cause is God. Most evolutionists point to rocks, skulls, and Gypsie Moths turning black from soot and saying these are the causes. Both hold incredible sway over their respective congregations.
For several months, I volunteered with the Henry Morris crowd at the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, CA. Even the curator of the museum agreed that creationists often make fatal mistakes in logic–in other words, they deny the obvious, such as the age of strata, fossile record, etc., and come to faulty conclusions, for example in regards to time frames. So, John the Curator fought back when he wrote the texts for some of the displays–he intentionally left time ambiguous. I don’t think his bosses ever caught on to his clever scheme.
Chris–I was letting my short hair down, basking in the glow of my diplomas, so I thought I’d start a creation/evolution rumor of my own. Hmm. Maybe its time to unleash my Creation Operetta for Lack of a Better Term on unsuspecting humanity. You’d die laughing at the lyrics, if I can find them (hmm . . .). Maybe I’ll rewrite ‘em.
Zoologos
Chris,
Evolution and creationism have mostly been seen in a totally physical VS spiritual connotation. If viewed within the spiritual doctrine only, one might see, that time is only relevant to God as the alpha and omega. For man to assume that all events in creation are a literal interpretation of 6 days we must define the time in its physical passing. However, in the spiritual realm time is irrelevant. “A day is as a thousand years.” Who knows where or for how long Adam and Eve were in paradise while the rest of creation was evolving? Looking at Genesis 1 and 2 you could very logically conclude that God created man, male and female, from the dust of the earth and breathed life (His spirit) into their nostrils. Then He may have created Adam as an addition to His plan or first of His favorites, as a separate example and Eve from his rib. This might also help explain the people in the land of Nod.
There are a lot of theories on both sides of the creation VS evolution issue and all of them are subjective. To say science is greater than God in explaining either side is foolish. Eventually we will know for sure so like Buddy said, Why give a crap?
Everything from the evolution side and everything from the creation side is right until God shows us otherwise. They are as compatible to me as any other questionable Christian doctrine created by man.
Robert–my joke above is actually based in part of Transpermia theory.
The professor, Galen Hunsicker, was explaining that many scientists had abandoned evolutionary theory. He told us that instead of embracing creation, they were proposing that life on earth was brought by aliens, and that these aliens left spores. In other words, we’re a Martian garden, so to speak.
Bruce – that is precisely what Francis Crick, the co-finder of DNA has suggested.
Net -why give a crap? Well why give a crap about anything, right? I mean, the signs say that Jesus is coming soon so let’s just wait and see.
Ahh, but in reality there are whole life times to fill up and the study of the universe, from the micro to the macro is fascinating. I for one, do not want to be constrained by incorrect dogma, if that is what it is.
Certainly we can deduce all kind of scenarios in which Adam and Eve fit into the current scientific view. But we can also deduce that they might be metaphors. Is that wrong?
netprophet said:
Eventually we will know for sure so like Buddy said, Why give a crap?
Or maybe He wont tell you…
maybe God wants us to figure this stuff out on our own…
R.
logio said:
Galen Hunsicker, was explaining that many scientists had abandoned evolutionary theory.
Many? I’d love a citation with names and their disciplines….
they were proposing that life on earth was brought by aliens, and that these aliens left spores. In other words, we’re a Martian garden, so to speak.
a possibility….
but what’s the issue then….how could you prove or demonstrate the truth of such a proposition
R.
The point I was trying to make is that the theory of evolution has as many holes in it than Christianity has denominational doctrines. Sooner or later it comes down to a matter of faith. According to the new testament,
1 Corinthians 15:45 (King James Version)”And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”
I can’t consider Adam a metaphor for all mankind.
I can’t consider evolution’s conclusion that man evolved from apes. I don’t know that the Bible is 100% literal but if you start playing around with it I’m sure you can make it be whatever you want.
The part about “Why give a crap?” means that I can study both evolution and creationism for just so long until I reach the conclusion that the answers are not obtainable and don’t effect my salvation, so it’s time to move on to more important things, like what do I do with this pod from Mars that I found growing in my cabbage patch?
OK, about. But you like to cook, right? And read about food, restaurants etc etc. Or music, history, physics, gardening, whatever…..It’s what we do, who we are. Unless we belong to that great segment of US society that only goes to work, watches reality TV, game shows and ball games, reads only the sports section and maybe goes to church on Sunday. Nothing wrong with that, but I seriously doubt that you (Net and Buddy) have narrowed your interests to only those things that do not impinge upon your salvation. So maybe this is merely academic…that’s what these forums usually are.
Besides, salvation is more than just individual. It is communal as well and this is a communal issue, a very big one, with many (most?) Christians.
I think Rob makes a good point. Perhaps, since we are made in God’s image, that he expects us to search for these answers. Christianity has been the fount (in spite of the Galileo misunderstanding) of scientific research, even today. Islam stopped being known for making scientific advances when they began to slide into fundamentalism. They refused to entertain any notion that might be considered heretical and scientists who made heretical pronouncements were shunned. China lapsed hundreds of years ago, falling far behind the West and they recently admitted that it was because they had no belief system like the West had, to encourage them in their scientific pursuits.
Large parts of the church today are ’shunning’ scientists (and cooks
) who dare to accept different naturalistic interpretations of scripture as they come up against irrefutable natural evidence (the Grand Canyon as a result of the Flood? Really?) for a different ordering of events, even presuming God ordered those events.
But again, I don’t think this is so much a matter of disputing evidence as it just dismissing any evidence that may cause dogma to suffer. Often the fragility of doctrine is due to the rigid reading of scriptures – it cannot stand to have one brick taken out and examined.
Been away from the computer awhile, sorry I didn’t get back sooner. What number am I? None of the above.
Seriously, I don’t think any of those options encompasses how I would describe my position…it is hard for me to hypothetically accept Darwinian Macro-Evolution for the sake of the question. I know, I’m being difficult, partly out of humor, partly out of seriousness as the choices are all in the general “theist” line of thinking, instead of specific Christian thought.
If one leaves Christianity to the side, only talking about a general, undefined “God,” and hypothetically accepts Darwinian Evolution as reality, then I’d be #3.
As for original sin; I totally believe it; don’t forget, I do lean YEC in the face of evidence. Adam’s sin did indeed affect humanity. We are triune beings made in the image of God; the fall affected our DNA, our spirituality, and our wills. I do believe we all share a set of ancestors; Adam and Eve. Currently we humans aren’t what we were meant to be.
I agree with many of Ken Ham’s (one “m” folks) positions, and yes, I’ve been to the Creation Museum and really enjoyed it. Here’s my review, on my blog: http://christianscribbler.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/creation-museum-review/
Again, if one argues that metaphors are used, then they must logically line up; if Adam formed from the ground is a metaphor for evolution, then what about Eve from Adam’s rib? The metaphors, to add anything to our knowledge, as most of us Christians believe the Bible does, have to line up accurately and logically. Thus far I haven’t dialogued with anyone that can make all the supposed metaphors “fit” logically.
OK, Kliska, well said. I am not sure if the metaphors are to line up ‘logically’. Part of the problem may be that I think it is important to consider who the human authors were and who they were writing to. I no longer believed that divinely inspired means that there the writings are immune from the culture of the writers. So this is, as most cultures were/are, a patriarchal culture that would assume that women are second to men, that men come first . ( Remember the chicken and the egg cartoon?
But to use your argument, literal interpretations of the scriptural accounts of creation do not line up in a logical fashion nor are they consistent with one another. I don’t see this as ‘mistakes’ but merely the way the storytellers told their stories. (i.e. Why did God make plants before he made the sun? If the genealogy of Jesus is meant to determine the Earth’s age (which was not the point) then how do we account for the geological record? etc, etc.)
Now, I don’t think it is my intent (nor do I suspect it is yours) to convince others that they are ‘wrong’ about how we take Creation and Evolution. Some folks, like Net, can see value in both. I can see value in Genesis, the truth in Genesis, while seeing the truths discovered by scientific inquiry. That being said, many people on both sides of this issue, firmly believe that one cannot have it ‘both ways’. And I think that is why there is a lot of value in exploring these issues.
Well, yes, there were human authors, but I read into your reply as meaning you do think that the scriptures were inspired. First, God is a logical God, and He is a truthful God; hence, I believe that His revealed truths will be both logical, and (circularly) truthful.
Eehhh…to avoid going into a long discussion on literal creationism, I’ll just say that I disagree with you. I find the literal interpretations to be logical, and I don’t find the inconsistencies you speak of. Sorry if I stick to “logical” language; I am after all a college Logic teacher…which bleeds over into my online dialogue. (BTW, Plants weren’t made before Light, and creationist scientists (with valid credentials) have touched upon the geological record and other experts cover the genealogies with much more exactness than I ever could…and as you say, this isn’t the point of the post.)
Even if the Adam/Eve story was to underline that men came first, it would be completely deceitful if Eve came from evolution just like Adam, her creation is described absolutely and categorically different than Adam’s creation. There is no reason for it, as it would have been just as easy to describe Eve’s creation from the dust of the earth as happening after Adam’s.
I agree; there is always value in exploring important and interesting issues; and people’s opinions on them.
Okay Kliska–is your belief about Genesis knowledge, opinion, or assertion? Proving the authentic nature of the text does not prove its accuracy, and does not prove that the writer intended the text to be a specific, accurate story for all time.
Christianity begins with faith and many of its Biblical doctrines are based on faith so it is not our responsibility to prove what we believe by faith, but for those who doubt our conclusions to prove us wrong. If you can prove me wrong, then I will change my belief as it relates to the doctrine.
Eph 4:14 “That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ”
By the way this has happened to many of my doctrinal beliefs, so I’m very open to a better understanding of the truth. Evolution thus far has made me curious but I have found very little proof, but a lot of conjecture.
logiopath, my ideas about Genesis are conclusions based upon different premises. Do I claim absolute knowledge that my interpretation is right? Absolutely not.
Do I claim that there is a correct interpretation of Genesis; absolutely. All I can do is weigh all the evidence (scriptural, scientific, etc…) , seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and logically look at the different interpretations to try to figure out which one, if any, is the correct interpretation.
BTW, Plants weren’t made before Light….,
OK, I’ll bite. What?
The thing is that we will never will “know”. And another thing is that, like it or not, almost all scripture is subject to interpretation. So, you don’t see it the way I do and vice versa. Do these different readings of Genesis point to an irreconcilable doctrinal difference?
No, but they do say that belief about a particular question is always subjective, and often existential.
WHO is THEY that says these beliefs are existential?
Obviously a belief in a six day creation is not existential, as there is little or no existing evidence to support or suggest it. But if God also ‘reveals’ himself to us through his Creation, isn’t that a type of “existential transcendence”?
If I look at the processes of nature and come to the conclusion, based upon the existing evidence, that this cannot be driven from within and must point to God, isn’t that existential?
netprophet said:
the theory of evolution has as many holes in it than Christianity has denominational doctrines.
Oh i just love those statements….
What does that even mean?
What are the nature of these ‘holes’?
The premises of evolution via random mutation and natural selection are ROCK SOLID…
Do we have examples of every transition? No. Will we ever? Probably not.
Does that invalidate the explanatory power that Modern Evolutionary Theory provides with respect to speciation and bio-diversity? Hell no!!
There is no other theory that comes close. Intelligent Design advocates can throw up all the objections they want but in the end that’s all they can do. They have NO research of their own. The framework they propose is not science, and in the end it boils down to a faith-based assertion consisting of ‘God did it!’ and if you can say that you could just as easily say that super-aliens from Tau-Ceti designed us both assertions are just as possible and just as untestable.
For my part I will accept nature how it is instead of imposing upon it how I would like it to be.
R.
It is existential because of the lack of evidence. I define existential as something deeply held based on personal experience (I think this is a correct definition). For example, if I am in church and receive an epiphany–I am convinced that God has personally spoken to me, and I intend to act on this belief–but my friend Dave says I’m nuts, and recommmends a good psychiatrist to assist me in my road back to sanity. I cling to my belief, and tell Dave he needs a dose of what I’m taking, it is existential.
So, let me tell you about Clarence (not his real name). Clarence and I were having a discussion about Genesis chapter 6, over the definition of the term “The Sons of God.” Clarence was insisting the true meaning of the text was that angels came to earth and literally procreated children with human women. He said his belief was partly based on asking the Holy Spirit the meaning of the text. Clarence was convinced that he had the accurate interpretation, and he clung to it with magnificent fervor and a bit of testosterone. This defines an existential belief. Norman Geisler, noted apologist and Christian philosopher calls this “Experientialism.” In other words, “experientialism offers experience as the final court of appeal.” For example, Kliska wrote, “Do I claim that there is a correct interpretation of Genesis; absolutely. All I can do is weigh all the evidence (scriptural, scientific, etc… , seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and logically look at the different interpretations to try to figure out which one, if any, is the correct interpretation.” Kliska is claiming that an experience with the Holy Spirit is the test for truth. Geisler would say that “experientialism is an inadequate test for the truth of Christian belief.”
I equate the term experientialism and existentialism as having similar definitions.
Webster’s definition says, “the way man finds himself existing in the world, that regards human experience as not exhaustively describable or understandable in scientific terms . . .” I guess your last paragaph could be included–but if you decided that you were at the center of the universe, and that God was a construction of your own experience (or at least your belief in God) that would be existential.
What you describe, in my opinion, is evidetialism married to the presupposition that God is the ultimate cause of what we call creation.
Your conclusions that something points to God would be existential is the opposite of an evidential viewpoint.
Ok, so I was playing devils advocate to prove my own theory, that debating Intelligent Design and evolution are not only useless, they are potentially destructive to both sides. Rather than defining the relationship between science and religion, evolution and theologically informed theories of creation as a ‘debate’, I believe it would be far better for both sides to grab this opportunity to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas through which real learning might become possible.
Christian said in the beginning of this thread that he wasn’t looking for a debate, however I knew that was unlikely. How often can you through a chicken into a lion’s den and receive a passive exchange from the lions? I thought if I put out a few typical Christian arguments and let them expand and excite the anger and frustration lobes of our brains, which had already moved well in that direction, we’d see just how long it would take for the disrespectful attitudes to show their ugly faces. As so called intelligent adults, it is our responsibility to figure out a way to make this discussion a truly educational opportunity for all involved, and by showing a little respect without the superior and condescending attitudes, of the ignorant.
Education is about inspiring curiosity, developing the skills of critical thought and inquiry, and engaging in a lifelong pursuit of knowledge. In this, both science and religion have an important contribution to bring to light on this subject.
Albert Einstein put it well when he said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
The fact is, the problems of life are far too complex for humanity to solve without the insights of either science or religion. From a theological standpoint, I find that studying the work of Charles Darwin in particular, as well as the more recent work of biologists and other scientists, is not only helpful in understanding how the material world in which we live and work is constructed. Such study also increases my appreciation of God’s creation and inspires even greater wonder and respect for the world we have been given.
Net, you sly fox. Your last paragraph sums up my viewpoint precisely.
Bruce, I was thinking along the lines of ‘Existentialism is a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created for them by deities or authorities or defined for them by philosophical or theological doctrines.” (Wikipedia) in which case I am not necessarily to accepting that which was created for me by the church or authoritative interpreters of scripture.
But I see what you mean.
That’s what I’m saying, Chris. Like some pentecostals, Jewish Kabbalists (like Eli Weissel), and some of your coworkers (and students) who believe God is speaking directly to them.
Kliska’s assertions about the method used to arrive at his/her beliefs about Genesis are quite existential, although I would bet the farm these beliefs agree with some doctrinal statement somewhere.
The discussion is interesting as always. I don’t know what # I would be, but I certainly don’t feel that a belief that evolution is real is incompatible with a belief in God. I believe Earth is in fact 4.2 billion years old and that God has been at work creating from the beginning. (Interestingly, I just read a post from Del Tackett (Focus on Family) and he clearly is advocating the idea that the Earth is young.)
I enjoyed McLaren’s “The Story We Find Ourselves In”. Brian dealt with this issue of — is it okay to believe in evolution and in God — in the context of a fictional story. I am trained as a scientist and I guess I appreciated the struggle the main character had connecting to a faith that she thought required her “suspend disbelief” and just accept that Earth is young when there is much evidence to the contrary.
After all, who do we think came up with the idea of evolution?
You’re kidding with this comment right…? 20 years ago I was a staunch Universalist… what’s your point?
No I really don’t give a crap… except when a theory gets taught as fact and jammed down my kids throat… That actually isn’t really happening in thier current school system now so, no, I don’t really give a crap.
Just because I choose not to pick a side to be militant on doesn’t mean I’m not curious, in a kind of… ‘isn’t that interesting’ kind of way. I find no value in trying to nail down, and prove the unprovable. As a matter of fact I find it far more enjoyable to ponder the mystery of it all… but it’s much more productive to spend my energies (and debating time) on things of the Kingdom that effect people now and in the future.
Alan, you lost me. I give up, who did come up with the idea?
Buddy, just militantly apathetic?
I don’t know about 20 years ago or what Universalism has to do with evolution but I do remember your classic retort concerning the question of why pre-Fallen sharks had sharp teeth; “Maybe it just amused God”. Can’t argue with that. 
Thanks for the fix… your getting good…
Not apathetic at all… redirected energy… those debates just aren’t on my radar screen anymore. Honestly, I skipped over the last 25 or so comments here.
Just that things change, we learn, we grow…
How about dinosaurs on the Ark, or Jobs/Psalms Leviathan being a Kronosaurus? I don’t really care about those either, but it’s fun to muse over…
I don’t think that what we are trying to do here (on this thread) is debate evolution (at least that’s not the intent) but rather to get at where or why it is incompatible with a Biblical faith. This particular issue presents a conversational wall between many people.
Is the wall necessary? Well a lot of us here, Christians and non-Christians alike, have said that it is a non-issue when it comes to having faith or not. Though it may be a non-issue where we are personally concerned I think it can be beneficial for all of us if we have an understanding of why it is so important to other people, Christians and non-Christians alike.
But the deal is that it IS a roadblock for many Christians. For reasons already stated. So (not to be difficult) the result of conversations like this tend to be to show why this point of view is wrong for one of a couple of purposes.
1 – To help these folks see how they are wrong and ‘come to their senses’ so we can all get along.
2 – To publicly distance oneself from this ‘misguided’ belief so that people won’t be turned off to Christianity, or worse, group you in with those wackos.
As far as the wall… I guess that’s what I’d like to avoid as well.
I think we miss the bus, so to speak. Origins is a topic that is not settled, is it? For example, we look at an Eskimo Raven tale (no relation to the Baltimore Football team) and say, “well, that’s a nice legend, but come on” or we read about Plato’s demigods (actually, he calls them Archons, or rulers) which is more compatible with a Jewish or Christian view.
We say, “Oh, the Archons are angels, and he Universe is what we call God.”
I don’t think Darwin was trying to write a science creation myth, so to speak, but a way to explain the unusual mutations on Galapagos Island.
I dunno. After my reading on the subject, I can’t fathom evolution–but 6 day creation also seems implausible, given the geologic time table. On the other hand, evolution tries to explain what happened during all of these epochs of time, which is also impossible. For example, we don’t really know what a particular dinosaur ate–or the true consumer order–because a scientist cannot reconstruct the events.
On the other hand, the problem with science which rejects God is that it does not answer the question of the origin of elements (“Matter cannot be created or destroyed” is not a satisfactory answer). I have read an article by Stephen Gould of Harvard, a nemisis of creationist Duane Gish, and some of Gish’s responses. Frankly, neither really presents an airtight case to reconcile their position.
I did a study of Ken Hamm’s magazine “Creation Ex Nihilo.” Some of the articles are solid and filled with worthy data on archaeology and other old stuff. The magazine had an excellent article on the walls of Jericho, which showed ruins of the walls. The magazine also had an article about a couple that is trying to prove Noah’s Ark. The couple stacked banana boxes in an attempt to show that the volume of the ark could have held all species of land animals (I’m not kidding, and I’m also trying not to misquote what I read). Another article showed Ligers; cross breeds of Lions and Tigers (which is interesting considering that the Penteteuch forbids hybrids and blended fabrics).
I concluded from the analysis of “Creation Ex Nihilo” that two ideas are obvious. 1) The Creationists hate being marginalized by the scientific community, and; 2) The Creationists marginalize themselves by ridiculous articles trying to prove the authenticity of Genesis.
Here’s one more thing–Genesis is probably as accurate, in an historic sense, as anything from the ancient world (which is debatable, especially if Genesis in its present form is post-exilic or even from the Masoretic Text of AD 1,000). However, what modern folks try and do is cement the presupposition that Genesis is meant to be an accurate account of the creation. We do not know the mind or intent of the original writer, and it is presumptuous to think we know better–even Augustine had his doubts about the age of the earth. He proposed that the earth was 600,000 years old, which was exponentially above any ideas floating around at his time.
The bottom line is that many are claiming to say inerrancy and a young earth are bedrocks of Christianity. What most do not realize is they are letting Bishop Ushher be their guide–and they defend the Ushher Chronology to the point that some church bodies are driven by Ushher.
Hmm.
Make that Ussher–thanx Wikipedia.
We have, as Wikipedia says, Enthroned Ussher. Its funny. We (meaning Christians) let our views of Genesis be driven by Ussher, and our eschatology by Sir Robert Anderson.
Buddy, or…
3.) Convince the ‘wackos’ that it’s OK to be “Christian” and still accept evolution.
Bruce, had to look up Ussher. Interesting. But that’s my question: is a Christian intolerance of evolution due to a strong belief in a young earth, as extrapolated from scriptures, or is it because evolution would tend to underline the metaphorical aspects of Genesis and perhaps attack the foundations of some of the doctrines of atonement?
Why in the world would you want to do that? So you personally won’t feel judged anymore? Why can’t they just be allowed to think it’s NOT OK? I don’t get it?
To answer your second question. I think it has more to do with the reason I can’t stand the Ravens. When they came to town, I was happy to have my Redskins to root for as well as an AFC team, the Ravens. I thought it would be great… but, the Ravens fans constantly insisted on trashing my Redskins, getting all cocky and berating me for liking them… You know what? I can’t stand the Ravens now… Starting with Scopes and before, Evolutionists sought the eradication of Creationism in schools, etc. (and visce verse)… that’s what I think… as a matter of fact, that’s where I was.. and to an extent still am. I don’t want the schools, or museums, etc telling my kids they can stop thinking because Evolution is some universal fact instead of the theory it is. It’s OK if my kids say “I don’t know”
I’ll turn to Hobbes for this, and although I am not directly quoting him, I believe this is relevant.
What we see is the effect–in other words, what we experience in he physical world is the result of some cause. In the pre-scientific mind, everything was attributed to something supernatural, whether God, gods, or some other nether intelligence.
Science comes along and says that he effects are results of their own causes, so to speak. In other words, water morphed from oxygen and hydrogen molecules. Life then somehow emerged when carbon joined these molecules, using the three elements for energy.
Fast forward to this century. The fundementalists, including Warfield, saw that seven basic doctrines had to be believed to refute the challenges of liberalism of the 19th century (this is not to refute your comments on Warfield). One of these doctrines is divine inspiration–Warfield writes, “a supernatural influence (is) exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness.”
(Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 131)
People like to have answers and authority–and you are right. The truth of evolution, to some fundementalists would mean that Genesis is a myth.
C. S. Lewis reconciled this by calling Genesis “true myth.”
I don’t think this is necessarily an either/or proposal, but faith is certainly challenged by evolution. I remember sixth grade, and I pondered these questions (really, I did) and we discussed these in class. My choice was to leave any belief in the Bible, and grasp evolution. However, I have since changed on both accounts.
I’ll chew on this and maybe come back another day. It seems you have moved on by raising the issue of salvation.
but, the Ravens fans constantly insisted on trashing my Redskins, getting all cocky and berating me for liking them…
Funny, that’s very much the way in which the staunch Creationist’s come off – “Don’t Check Your Brain at the Door” and “Someone’s Trying to Make a Monkey Out of You” etc. etc.
And you tend to keep looking through the wrong end of the Scopes
you’ve been handed. It’s not really about the ‘poor’ people who believe in Creationism just wanting to be left alone – there is a large, vocal group of them that tend to keep ‘trashing’ the faith of those who don’t agree with them.
I don’t think this is necessarily an either/or proposal, but faith is certainly challenged by evolution.
Agreed. But faith is challenged by much more than evolution. Does faith require physical evidence to support it? And if that is the case, what happens to faith when the supports are yanked out?
I’ve encountered many atheists who once belonged to very conservative fundamentalist faith traditions, who after seeing the light of ‘truth’ rejected their former beliefs. I have met very few that come from more liberal traditions.
Thus the “vice verse” in my comment.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” …
What’s really troubling is that you started blogging at 6:30 AM. Are you sure this is healthy?
Does faith require physical evidence to support it?
If ‘faith’ has supporting evidence, it’s no longer faith, it’s knowledge.
Buddy -sorry, missed the vice versa.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” …
Good point. But are you suggesting that by asserting that seeing value in evolutionary theory does not compromise my faith is in some way treating others uncharitably? I do not suggest that their position compromises their faith at all. I think you should consider directing that instruction in different direction – towards those who are ‘condemning’ the faith of those who are not biblical literalists.
Brugio -Healthy? Probably not. I get up at 5:30 and drink coffee and read or blog for an hour. What do you do with your morning?
Buddy – agreed.
“blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Yet this idea of knowledge vs. faith – it can be argued from both points of view in this discussion. I mean, no one has seen anything ‘evolve. I do think that faith is an essential element in pretty much all we that we believe, natural or supernatural.
During the school year? I’m at “work.”
This summer? The first four weeks I was getting out and walking, etc.
Last few weeks? Less walking, more TV.
Can’t sleep very well lately (really all summer). I’m very jittery and hyper these days.
Whoever
Nope. Directed more at this comment:
3.) Convince the ‘wackos’ that it’s OK to be “Christian” and still accept evolution.
That would be wasted energy. I have no control over who they chose to condemn, I only have control over myself. I have enough to fix about myself I don’t need to take on trying to fix others as well.
It’s like Kathy always says… like trying to teach a pig to sing. It only frustrates me and annoys the pig.
Hey, that line was tongue a cheek – I was just rebounding off or your earlier mention of ‘wackos’. Sorry to give the wrong impression.
First, to logiopath, I am not saying that the Holy Spirit always works apart from actual physical evidence; not just existential evidence, but also evidence that everyone can examine. I do say that without the Holy Spirit a person in hampered in their search for truth…it is like missing one of your senses and trying to fully explore the physical world. I would also point out that the original post is limited in scope for good reason, but there is indeed external, objective evidence that can be studied for the different doctrines of Christianity, I don’t believe the point was to cover them all.
I’m kind of surprised at Beyer’s question: “BTW, Plants weren’t made before Light…. ,OK, I’ll bite. What?”
1st day: Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
3rd day: Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Therefore Light was made before plants.
Beyer said, “The thing is that we will never will “know”. And another thing is that, like it or not, almost all scripture is subject to interpretation. So, you don’t see it the way I do and vice versa. Do these different readings of Genesis point to an irreconcilable doctrinal difference?”
Your first statement is a blanket statement; I fully expect to know some day for 100% fact. And, of course we could argue epistemology all day; but yes, scripture is subject to interpretation, but correct interpretation is indeed possible.
Do I see them (our different readings) as irreconcilable? In their current state, yes, but everyone is free to change their minds based upon evidence. And as always, I don’t consider the question of evolution and/or literal reading of Genesis as a salvational question.
Uh-oh. “Beyer”, is it?
OK, first let me say that I do not think that Genesis needs to adhere to any logical, rational or naturalistic chain of events to present valid truths. I am just looking at this as a ’skeptic’ might.
Genesis 1:3 Let there be light
Genesis 1:11 Let there be plants
Genesis 1:14-18 God makes the sun and the moon.
It is ‘illogical’ (IMAO) to assume plants before the existence of the Sun (and the moon) which provides the earth with the light, warmth and tidal action necessary to support life. Of course the author of Genesis might not see this.
Could it be that the light that god spoke of in the beginning is the energy that came into existence ex nihilo at what we call the “Big Bang”? Light is a very common metaphor used throughout scriptures.
When I say that ‘we will never know’ the ‘we’ I am referring to is mankind, here on this earth. I fully expect that we, you, I and others, will someday ‘know’ quite a bit more. But I don’t think we can ever ‘know’ everything. Not only would that be God’s job description, but how boring would heaven be then?
How can something associated with the Big Bang be “ex nihilo” (Out of Nothing)? Doesn’t the Korpulent Kosmic Kaboom presume the entire mass of the universe in an itty-bitty ball? If so, it cannot be ex nihilo.
Also, if the Universe did not exist as it is known at the present, where was the Orb Orbiting? Hmm.
Actually no. The ’singularity’ that was the source of the ‘big bang’ is supposed to contain the mass of the entire universe in something that had zero volume. An impossibility as far as the laws of physics go, hence the term ’singularity’.
Orb?
The Orb? The atom sized ball that was supposed to contain the entire volume of the universe. Where was it floating? Who kept it together?
What is th origin of the elements?
At least the ancient Greeks, such as Aristotle, would admit the existence of the uncaused cause, or at least a Prime Mover.
The Orb? Did you ever see Sleeper with Woody Allen?
But that’s just it. Physicists have come up with this very inconvenient singularity that is the source of the universe, itself an ‘uncaused cause’.
There is are a couple of folks, a professor of physics names Tipler and an earth science professor named Shroeder who feel that this ’singularity’ is strong evidence for God.
Michael Behe, he of Intelligent Design fame, has written a book Darwin’s Black Box. In the book he shows that the flagellum (tails) of E-Coli (icky) are so complex, that when viewed at the molecular level, the complexity screams God. Unfortunately, it is actually the atheist scientists who are screaming because the results scream God.
Christians, as I said above, gain control over people by maintaining the division between evolution and creation. Organizations such as Ham’s Creation Thing (I can’t remember the name) bring a lot of $$$$ in to fund the organizations projects. If a synthesis was the goal, the unemployment rate would increase in Kentucky, because all of their museum employees would be sacked.
I didn’t know shortening your name would be seen as a bad thing, it is common practice on forums, and other blogs, if I insulted you by doing so, forgive me…perhaps you’d like CB better? I answer to just about anything; Kliska, Kali, K, or even “hey you.”
You said, “OK, first let me say that I do not think that Genesis needs to adhere to any logical, rational or naturalistic chain of events to present valid truths. I am just looking at this as a ’skeptic’ might.”
Well then I can’t really continue on in a conversation where logic is thrown out…we are conceiving of God, and how He communicates in two totally different ways. Yes, I do expect logic even in metaphor, and He apparently does operate that way (logically) as seen from His other uses of metaphor in scripture.
“It is ‘illogical’ (IMAO) to assume plants before the existence of the Sun (and the moon) which provides the earth with the light, warmth and tidal action necessary to support life. Of course the author of Genesis might not see this.”
Sorry, it isn’t an assumption; it is spelled out plainly in scripture. Just as it is in the end time, where the Lord Himself with be the light in New Jerusalem with no need for a sun.
“Could it be that the light that god spoke of in the beginning is the energy that came into existence ex nihilo at what we call the “Big Bang”? Light is a very common metaphor used throughout scriptures.”
Either way, it specifies light before plants, and that’s the question I was answering…what you are asking is an entirely different question, and I don’t really have a dog in that fight, so to speak, at this point.
Hey, you! I’m not insulted. Just kidding around (hence my ’smiley’)
Anyway, I think that for someone who does not take all scripture literally (which could include someone like Augustine who cautioned against a ‘carnal’ reading of the Book of Revelations) the idea that God is the physical light that provides for plants would be a very tough sell.
The truth of scriptures like Genesis and Revelations may be plainly spelled out (although Revelations has been puzzling people for ages) in the process it is full of metaphors. Or are they metaphors? I think that’s where we are in disagreement. I don’t see the logic when they stop being seen as metaphors and start being seen as actualities.
But where we probably do agree is that Genesis tells of how God is sovereign, he created all that there is, he loves us and is faithful to us even when we turn away from him.
Logiopath said:
Michael Behe, he of Intelligent Design fame, has written a book Darwin’s Black Box. In the book he shows that the flagellum (tails) of E-Coli (icky) are so complex, that when viewed at the molecular level, the complexity screams God. Unfortunately, it is actually the atheist scientists who are screaming because the results scream God.
ummm no it doesn’t. Clearly you didn’t watch the NOVA special on the Kitzmiller decision in Pennsylvania. Not mention that Behe’s contentions have been widely discredited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/irreducible_complexity/flagellum_evolution/
Behe himself very tellingly has back-pedaled from his irreducible complexity shtick in his latest book, The Edge of Evolution. The Discovery Institute has all but thrown Behe under a bus for his surrender on just about all of his previous contentions.
R.
I know you was just kiddin’ I just didn’t want you (or anyone else) thinking that disagreement means “not Christian” Beyer…
I tend to look at both cultural and literary context to determine what is or is not to be taken literally. There is also the larger context of the scripture and the ultimate message contained therein.
And we do indeed agree on the basic meaning, or point, of the Genesis story.
Robert,
I didn’t know this about Behe.
This line “Behe himself very tellingly has back-pedaled from his irreducible complexity shtick in his latest book” is interesting. He seems so certain in Black Box.
Ok–what it the cause of the Big Bang, and the source of the matter, if not some intelligent force or Being?
Kliska -whew! I feels betta.
Bruce – that IS the question, is it not?
If you accept evolution as scientific fact, then the eventual creation of man was “designed” by nothing more than natural selection; an unguided but far from random process that takes life from its humble simple replicator beginnings all the way through to our own wonderful complexity. The insertion of a God figure is entirely superfluous and not required in the least. The process looks after itself; “God” can be infinitely lazy, his pupported existence lends nothing to the explanation. If you really think we’re the product of a super-being’s uber-design, then our all-powerful God is a lousy designer! The human eye is often held up as an example of intelligent design – and this wonderful “design”, amazing though it is, is flawed with a blindspot! Hmm, blindspots and the faithful – I’m sure there’s something to remark upon there. If you’re serious about debating the Big Bang, go study particle physics – the scientific world at large has only partial explanations for the very nature of matter and how the BB might have come to occur. But however unlikely that event was, there was an infinite amount of time in which it could and did occur. Why do you hunger for a meaning in this particular event? Evidence of former universes is by definition not going to be around for us to look at, but given infinite time we can postulate a series. How foolish of the most intelligent species alive today (and we will no doubt disappear in the blink of an eye, in cosmological terms) to place such importance on its own existence and suggest an omipotent being designed the course of the universe to this point in time, specifically with them in mind. It amazes me how the obviously intelligent persons writing above get stuck in pointless theological ruminations; I fail to understand why your intelligence is not applied to making your life mean something, instead of looking to some non-evident being for meaning. Read “Letter to a Christian Nation”. Read Dawkin’s The God Delusion (or for that matter, any of his works), and you may move on to more MEANINGFUL debates.
I’m sure my words won’t convince anyone, but I hope someone out there is brave enough to put their faith-crutches to one side and reads a science book that might challenge their beliefs for once. Science progresses by continuous challenging – the better theory, the more truthful explanation wins out. Every scientist is prepared to drop their belief in any particular scientific theory in favour of a better one – IFF the evidence is there to support such a change of heart. The religious cling on to their beliefs, come what may – the theory of evolution has so far failed to persuade many to abandon their outdated superstitions – perhaps a final theory of everything is required to convince the remainder (although that still won’t be enough for some – some evidently need the assurance of an afterlife, as provided through religious belief). But make no mistake – explanations of big bangs and theories of everything are the work of current day scientists – Stephen Hawking being the most famous example. It may only be a matter of time before the big bang (for example) is explained in full – will your belief without evidence survive the fullest explanation science then provides?
Welcome Duncan.
Why should anyone care whether or not their lives ‘mean something’? I mean, looking at it from an atheist perspective. Why ‘waste’ your time tying to prove there is no God? Why do anything at all, that does not celebrate the immediate moment? Because surely this moment will end and there may not be another.
It may be only a matter of time before a Theory of Everything is postulated. In fact, don’t we already have some floating around out there? But it can never be proven (unless you are a scifi and fantasy fanatic). So there will likely be more theories after that. To believe otherwise is to have something akin to in irrational (and often emotional) ‘faith’ in science.
Christian said:
Why ‘waste’ your time tying to prove there is no God? Why do anything at all, that does not celebrate the immediate moment?
Exactly, and I do not in the least concern myself as to whether or not there IS a God. Proving a negative i.e. proving that there is NO god is a ridiculously difficult proposition as is evidenced by Russell’s Teapot argument. I don’t have to prove there isn’t a God anymore than i don’t have to prove there aren’t unicorns or leprechauns….it is incumbent upon the believer to demonstrate evidence that there are such things! The evidence they provide is not compelling in that there are other natural explanations for the evidence they provide.
In the end my faith resides in the the methods of science and the explanatory power of theories of Science.
No other method of understanding comes remotely close to the results that those methods have given us. You cannot argue with them.
R.
But you see, I don’t feel compelled to prove or even provide evidence for God. I don’t believe that is what many Christians think is the Great Commission. The Good News that Jesus says that we are to share is that we are loved by God and we are forgiven. We do not need to be tied to these man made and burdensome yokes that give us our false sense of worth. Eternal life can be ours. And there are all kinds of ways in which to share this Good News and proselytizing is not necessarily one of them. If I share this with someone and it has no value then so be it. Perhaps the problem wasn’t with the message but with the medium.
“I don’t have to prove there isn’t a God anymore than i don’t have to prove there aren’t unicorns or leprechauns….”
Rob, I know you don’t mean that the way it sounds. No one believes in unicorns or leprechauns. They are as obviously fictitious as Francis Crick’s intergalactic life-seeding creatures.
But a faith in God is not akin to a belief in fairies, no matter how often or how stridently people like Harris and Dawkins may say so. (Which is no better than those who stridently assert that they are damned for their beliefs.)
“No other method of understanding comes remotely close to the results that those methods have given us. You cannot argue with them.”
If we are talking about theories about the first cause, then yes I can. Because we have no idea what precipitated the Big Bang and most likely never will. What results are you referring to? They are nothing more than postulations designed to try and fit into what we know about physics but we do know that in a singularity like that at the beginning of time all physical bets are off. It could be all about bubble-universe-breeding- sea foam or great leprechauns or even God.
I know you don’t mean that the way it sounds. No one believes in unicorns or leprechauns.
No it is an absurdity meant to convey the ridiculous nature of the proposition…
Francis Crick’s intergalactic life-seeding creatures.
But such and God are quite equally plausible and equally indemonstrable…
Because we have no idea what precipitated the Big Bang and most likely never will.
To paraphrase Hawking; to ask what happened BEFORE the big bang is as meaningless a question as is what is North of the northpole.
Before is a meaningless term in a Cosmos where time is as elastic as space itself…the very fabric of space and time are part of the Cosmos, not an arena in which the cosmos happens…
As you said maybe it is God or leprechauns….
R.
I agree. We have a problem and little consensus over concepts like time, eternity and infinity. They are not necessarily speaking about the same things.
I don’t ask what came ‘before’ the Big Bang but there are plenty of scientists who do:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Chasing at rainbows?
Hey Christian
As a temporal beings, who exist in time, we can never pull ourselves out of time (apologies to the writers of the dreadful Star Trek episode where Wesley Crusher did that very thing).
Could we even conceive of an existence outside of time?
It’s a similar idea to imagining a fourth spacial dimension imagine a measurement at right angles to the three we know of. it’s completely outside our experience! Yet, we have reason to believe that our universe is curved into a fourth spacial dimension.
For purposes of clarity imagine yourself a two-dimensional creature …you have width and length but no height at all. The idea of height is completely outside your experience so you have no concept for it. Imagine one day you make an “X” on the ground and you start walking. You never change direction you, never deviate from a straight path. Much to your surprise you come back to your starting place; the “x”. How would you explain this? You would conclude that there is some property of your universe that doesn’t quite add up in your 2 dimensional world. If you were a clever 2-dimensional creature you might come to a conclusion that some how your flat world is curved into a 3rd spacial dimension. As we are 3 dimensional creatures we can easily see how this unusual and counter-intuitive phenomena, from the stand-point of our dimensionally challenged friend, is possible: Flatland, is a curved into the spherical shaped object we know as a globe or sphere.
Add a dimension and this is the situation that many scientists believe is our universe. We cannot point to this 4th spacial dimension but we’d be able to perceive it were we to conduct a similar experiment to the one our flat-lander performed.
Time is a special case….as a rule we can only move forward in time and a rate that is more or less constant as function of our relative motion in spacial dimensions (as per special relativity). We can remember the past but we can’t predict the future.
If God exists, I believe He exists outside time and to Him, there is no difference between the fraction of a second after the big bang and 20 billion years hence. It’s all the same to Him.
I love thinking about this stuff…gives me a tingle in my spine…really it does!
R.
Exactly. Me too.
I remember a little illustration that CS Lewis once made. Imagine that we are minuscule beings that live within a very narrow plane of existence, something like the line of surface tension that separates water and air. From our perspective, if someone were to push their finger into the water all we would perceive is that cross section of finger that resides within our plane. We could not comprehend anything else. But we could imagine.
Hi Christian,
You replied: “Why should anyone care whether or not their lives ‘mean something’? I mean, looking at it from an atheist perspective. ”
Why indeed. Personally, I don’t think like that, and I don’t think atheists generally ask these questions of themselves – they’ve moved on. It’s the agnostics that lean towards theism that do (and therefore that I’d wish to discourage from doing so!).
I find the idea of looking beyond ourselves for meaning quite objectionable – it’s a lazy way of thinking and can lead to an absolution of responsibility. Accepting responsibility for one’s actions as determining one’s own future happiness (and that of one’s family, and so on) is simple common sense, isn’t it? But the temptation of faith (to agnostics) is to look beyond that which we can control, and hope for supernatural forces to intervene, especially when times are tough. That’s called praying, which is where the agnostic appears to cross the line to theism. Agnostics (or non-committed theists) do pray – for selfish reasons and out of desperation, and without faith. “Better to try and fail, than never have tried at all.” (As if a God woudn’t realise the insincerity!)
On the subject of praying: If our prayers go unanswered, there are a host of theological retorts to explain why He’s not listening. Either He has another plan for us (so why pray anyway), or we are not deserving of His help (so what does it take?) In the sum total of prayers going on at any one moment in time, a great deal of them must be incompatible with one-another. What’s a God to do?!
It’s just another superstition – I do not see the difference between praying and performing rain dances , or ritual sacrifices. That is, in terms of effectiveness – I appreciate praying usually doesn’t involve killing anyone!
When any of these superstitious practices seems to deliver, the belief is compounded (and the times it did’t work are conveniently forgotten.) Mankind, across many cultures, continues to exhibit all sorts of superstitious behaviour – from gamblers who believe in “lucky” habits, to everyday newspaper readers that bother to read their “astrological” destiny. There’s a great deal of self-deception going on, based on superstition backed up with get-out-of-jail-free excuses dressed as reason.
These superstitions are often based on misfirings of our built-in pattern-recognition apparatus. Some dances and it rains – ah ha, IF you dance, THEN it rains. I read with interest about a series of experiments with caged birds – 6 out of 8 of whom ended up demonstrating what can only be termed superstitious behaviour. The pattern-recognition capability is present in most animals, to varying degrees, and it is there (through evolution) to spot causal links – but it doesn’t always get it right. In the case of the birds, they associated whatever it was they’d been doing (preening, turning around, moving the head) with the provision of a food reward – the reward mechanism was actually just on a random timer. I see praying (and rain dancing) in the same light.
Back to our agnostics. I’d say many people consider themselves as ‘having a religion’, without that actually meaning anything about the way they live their lives. It’s no more than an inherited possession. In return for pigeon-holing oneself as being of one faith or another, the church does provide a couple of decent services – quite literally. Specifically, it’s either a grand place to have a wedding, or a suitably sombre place to pay one’s last respects.
And on the subect of God and time – he’s out of our time frame, because he’s God and sees all of time, right? He’s omniscient, as well as omnipotent. And therein lies a paradox, poetically phrased by Karen Owens:
Can omniscient God who,
Knows the future find,
The omnipotence to,
Change His future mind?
Regards – Duncan Mackay
Duncan, I’ll address just a couple of the parts to your comment right now;
I think you can be forgiven for objecting so strongly to the popularly held, but hardly the most accurate, idea of prayer. The common perception of intercessory prayer tends to have elements of the spectacular about it, focusing on changed fortunes, miraculous cures and supernatural interventions. And at times I believe prayer does provoke those things.
But generally speaking, when one prays to God most often the changes that take place are in the hearts and minds of the one doing the praying. Early in one’s faith it is common to ask God for things that would provide you or your loved ones with a favorable material outcome. But when the beach goer prays for sunshine and the farmer prays for rain who does God listen to? Both. But his response may have nothing to do with meteorology. True prayer, not the kind that is cravenly selfish, opens the person up to the hopes and dreams of others and how God may want that person to assist others in realizing their dreams. To pray for one’s own fortune with no regard for others is not the way of God, but the way of man.
God and time? Who knows? I am a bit of an open theist myself. Although science is suggesting the possibility that time might be like a record one can play forwards and back, I tend to think it is merely the academic construct of finite man to help him deal with the infinite. The future does not exist – so how can God ‘know’ it? He may know everything but how can he know a ‘no’ thing. He may have numbered the hairs on my head but he cannot do the same with the whiskers in Santa’s beard.
Thanks for stopping by. You provoke thought.
I hear a method in your ritual. It will serve you well.
The ritual is old – and false; but the benefit is real.
All you are experiencing is that known to others as meditation. And all that is, is deep thought.
I’m sure there’s no-one here on the edge of indecision, so I’ll leave you, and them, and futher discussion with some parting words:
You have been born.
You may not yet have lived.
It is certain that you will die.
Do all that you can do to live this life to its full.
Good advice, no matter what your beliefs.
You know, this question astounds me, no matter where people stand in this argument they end up using a bit of theism that they aren’t particularly sure holds up their position. more from the christian side than from the atheist.
The atheist says ‘evolution proves that life is a natural accidental process that has occurred in our cosmos right here and therefore can happen anywhere else’
the agnostic always says ‘this proves nothing’ (bloody liberal democrats)
and then the theists wade in, missing a big fat crucial point.
If God is the god of love who gave life free will, why would God be directing anything, to be directive is entirely against the concept of free will.
If we have a God of Love and Truth who wanted to experience what free life would do, then what we currently live would be a probable – mathematically any possibility has a possibility and this is the one we ended up with – outcome.
Life is not perfect, it wasn’t perfect in Jesus day, nor in the myriad days before, but his word speaks to those past days as much as it speaks to the present.
The Oneness that binds all life, imagined life, and so it grew, from little viruses into plankton into fish – lungfish – duck-billed platypus stylee thingies of different types only one of which survives today – and from there branching into the variety of mammalian life that is part of the wider astonishing abundance of different beings, who’s DNA all demonstrate a common beginning.
According to my DNA I’m 99% Chimpanzee and 51% Bananas, even the Banana is my brother, we are one life, why is this not a reason for us to rejoice?
Because it contradicts a folk story that predates writing that any culture who value genealogy is going to make up.
Abraham wrote his name on a stick and taught his sons to do the same, this act continued through the legendary ‘Rod of Jesse’ and on to modern times.
Abraham never mentioned Adam and Eve, they got mentioned by someone much later, asked by an acolyte so who came before them and before him and before him and before him and at the exasperation point – GOD.
The early Torah is a fairly good (but occasionally proven inaccurate) history of a people. Written to remember and honour forebears and big up the nation listening now, first an oral tradition and later written down. But when we exist in a world where so much bullshit is sold as truth, why do we expect the past to be any different? and why because it is old bullshit are we expected to place our entire faith backing this old bullshit rather than rejoicing in God’s greatest gift, the FREE WILL to develop as species according to our prayers, we continue to develop often in accordance with prayer, this doesn’t prove that we were once perfect it proves that we desire to reach out for love. How does that argue with the ‘Findings (he didn’t make them up, they’ve been duplicated) of Darwin.’
Young Earth Creationists……..Why does a God of Truth and Love put fossils there to test our faith, If God did such a thing, God would not be the God of Truth and Love.
A God of Deceit and Bullshit would do such a thing, so one belief denies the other. Shirley?
When I read or hear of people who say that evolution screams of a designer i have to wonder why he couldnt get it right the first time. unless the loss of over 99 % of his creations were a part of his plan.
Extinction, though, is usually a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.[2][3]
wikipedia. butother sources give the same number
sounds like a total screw up
Hey, AJ. Welcome. Sorry I didn’t respond to sooner – busy weekend.
It sure does. I’m not sure that this is the case (meaning that God has a ‘plan’ – that the Universe is entirely predetermined). But what if the extinction of species, including man, IS part of his plan? Perhaps, and of course I am speculating, new life is not possible without the end of old life. Or does old life not just disappear but actually become new life? Isn’t that what evolution is all about? (What would life be like if there were no death? Would it even be possible?)
If we believe that natural history isn’t about God’s plan but ONLY about the course of nature then couldn’t we then say that nature is totally screwed up? But we wouldn’t. When we attempt to define God too closely (as most theists and atheists do) then when we make all kinds of assumptions about ‘him’ that unnecessarily tests the credibility of such a concept. The atheist will then dismiss the concept and the theist will then make up religion to explain it.
Anyway, most theists see physical death as a deviation of God’s plan or at worst a transition to another aspect of life – a totally spiritual, metaphysical or supernatural aspect. (There does seem to be a metaphysical element to science so…why not?) Looking at it that way takes some of the sting out of death.