|
Author
|
Topic: Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3121 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 136 of 485 (569681)
07-23-2010 7:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 135 by jar
07-22-2010 11:03 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
Suppose though you look at the Bible as an anthology of anthologies, a collection of stories written by people of different eras, milieus and mythos. Suppose you look at the many different gods in the stories with an understanding that what is being depicted is the vision that a given author had of God at that time? Consider that, as you touch on in the part I quoted, the god in a story really does evolve along with the civilization of the period? Finally, carry that idea further. The most recent story in the Bible was likely written about 1900+ years ago. Is it possible that the concept of god may have evolved since then? Remember, in all of this we are still not talking about GOD, the real entity, but only mankind's concepts of that critter. Than I take it you are not looking at the Bible as the all inclusive God-inspired inerrent word of God it (and fundamentalist Christians) make itself to be. Sure I dig it. I don't have any problems looking at the Bible as just another man made religious text. The question than become why should I believe anything in it concerning the very existence of God as a real entity, salvation, the resurrection of Christ, or any other Christian theology? If this is the case than the Bible is good literature but not entirely credible. There are still moral axioms that are good to learn from it just like any other ancient literature i.e. the Golden Rule, self-sacrifice, etc but you have to pick and choose and sift through the crap to find the good moral stories. This is akin to Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible, centered around 'The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth'. I have no problem with that at all. In fact that is what I currently do. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by jar, posted 07-22-2010 11:03 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 137 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 9:08 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
DevilsAdvocate writes: Than I take it you are not looking at the Bible as the all inclusive God-inspired inerrent word of God it (and fundamentalist Christians) make itself to be. Of course, the Bible itself makes no claims about being infallible, inclusive or inerrant. That's another error the Fundamentalists make. In fact, there is not even such a thing as "The Bible".
DevilsAdvocate writes: The question than become why should I believe anything in it concerning the very existence of God as a real entity, salvation, the resurrection of Christ, or any other Christian theology? I can't think of any reason you should believe in GOD until you are presented with evidence sufficient to convince you. Frankly, I can't even see why that would matter. And as to salvation, no one has a clue about that. My point though was more in reference to what I quoted.
DevilsAdvocate writes: However, what I do take issue with especially is the morally contradictory and hypocritical nature of God in the Bible. To me he comes off as an irrational, selfish, vengeful, ego-maniacal, cruel tyrant who commands murders, infanticide and ethnicide of entire civilizations and groups of human beings. It is as if the the concept of god evolves throughout the Bible along with the civilization that conceives him in the first place. To me the god of the Bible is too contrived and too morally and philosophically dynamic in his nature, especially after having claimed himself to never-change. Would the approach I suggested above help with the issues you raised just above? Edited by jar, : had to go get the older quote
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
DevilsAdvocate writes: That is an interesting concept of God that I can grasp. So in essense God is not omniscient under the randomality of free will. Makes sense. Also, nowhere in the Bible are the specific words omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent ever used. These are all implied and sometimes very weakly. However, what I do take issue with especially is the morally contradictory and hypocritical nature of God in the Bible. To me he comes off as an irrational, selfish, vengeful, ego-maniacal, cruel tyrant who commands murders, infanticide and ethnicide of entire civilizations and groups of human beings. It is as if the the concept of god evolves throughout the Bible along with the civilization that conceives him in the first place. To me the god of the Bible is too contrived and too morally and philosophically dynamic in his nature, especially after having claimed himself to never-change.
When I conceive God I do it through the lens of Jesus. I agree that the God of the OT often doesn't reflect the model that we see in the NT. My views are that the historical aspects of the OT are written from the perspective of the writer in that they tended to justify the horrendous things they did by saying that God told then to do it. (Obviously the moral history of WW II would read very differently if the nazis had won.) The OT of course isn't all like that. Jesus was only quoting the existing Jewish scripture when he told people that the greatest command was to love God and neighbour.
DevilsAdvocate writes: This is also similar to John Bunyon's allegory "Pilgrim's Progress" when he finds the man in the iron cage. No one is keeping him physically and mentally in the cage but himself. I think the truth of this goes beyond religion and explains more of the human condition that even when acknowledging their own plight many people choose to remain in dispair and misery due to fear of the unknown and the mental inability to take themselves out of that situation. I haven't read Pilgrims Progress but I should. I agree. It is about being able to take the focus off of ourselves and being able to focus on goodness purely for the love of that goodness.
DevilsAdvocate writes: Ok, I am using the term 'historical evidence' as a subset of emperical evidence. Historians and other people who study the validity of various claims and historical accuracy of stories throughout our human evolution must abide by some of the same guidelines that scientists do. That is they must find various independent historical sources which corroborate each other. Sources from within the same book i.e. Mark, Luke, John, etc. cannot do that; as we have no way of knowing that who(m)ever cannonized the NT did not modify or even fabricate the original author(s) words to make it more believable. Independent verification from a convergence of corroborating and coherent sources (i.e. eyewitness testimony, writen documantion, paintings, etc, etc) is the key to historical accuracy. I agree, but you can also look at how something is written. The gospel accounts aren't written in the manner the way things were written at the time, they aren't what a 1st century Jew would have written based on the OT, they exhibit all sorts of failings by the main characters in the narrative etc. In the end it is nothing like anything that we would have expected if somebody were fabricating the whole account.
DevilsAdvocate writes: That is the test of the validity of Jesus being a real human being has to stand up to. Now for the validity of Jesus being the Son of God mentioned in the Bible requires even a greater amount of evidence, none of which can be corroborated due to the supernatural nature of this claim. The only evidence that can be provided is the Bible itself and hearsay from those who already believe the Bible and thus are suseptible to self-dillusion and religious bias. Actually it was only after the resurrection that Son of God came to mean that Jesus was one aspect of a triune god. Prior to that it was considered as a messianic term and a messiah was never expected to be anything more than a human anointed by God. It was after the resurrection and the meaning of the resurrection through the interpretation of some of the prophetic statements in the OT that the use of the Son of God came to mean something more than messiah.
DevilsAdvocate writes: "I sincerely believe". Belief does not constitute evidence. Of course. It's just a statement of my personal belief or faith if you like.
GDR writes: As I mentioned earlier Christianity makes sense of the world for me in a way that no other world view does. I agree that is a completely subjective view and in the end it does require a leap of faith. At this point in my life I don't see it as a large leap, but a leap nonetheless. DevilsAdvocate writes: That is fine and dandy but what differentiates your beliefs from those of Budhists, Muslims, Mormans, Christian Scientists, or any other religious denomination or cult? In other words, where is the evidence for your belief? C S Lewis said; "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. " I believe that there is a lot to that. Does it constitute evidence? Not in the sense that you are meaning but just the same we are able to sense love, beauty, longing, fear etc. and I can't bring myself to believe that all just comes from a chance combination of atoms that just happened to exist in the first place. I think that Christianity does the most coherent job of answering the big questions.
DevilsAdvocate writes: am sure many crazy people can say the same thing (no, I am not saying you are crazy or anything like these other people) i.e. Islamic radical terrorists, Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, Sun Myung Moon, Pat Robertson, David Koresh, Jerry Fallwell, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Jones, etc, etc, etc. I understand what you are saying. I can't speak for anyone else's experiences but my own. (And thanks for not lumping me in with that crowd.  ) I don't expect my own experiences to mean anything to anyone but myself.
DevilsAdvocate writes: Do realize that many of the non-believers on this board on this board were at sometime in their lives Bible-thumping and studying, hymn-singing, church-going, praying and repenting Christians themselves (including myself). That will help in understanding where we are coming from. I know that. I contend that one of the reasons for that is that so much of Christianity is a watered down, often self-serving caricature of the real thing, but again that is my subjective POV. Christianity then becomes very easy to reject. I admit that I may be all wrong.
DevilsAdvocate writes: Agreed. Try getting schooled in physics and cosmology by CaveDiver. That is a humbling experience. Just the same, he is often very good at making incredible concepts credible. He certainly is knowledgeable. Actually I find the quality of the majority of the posts on this forum humbling. Thanks for the discussion. GDR Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
|
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3394 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: 08-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 139 of 485 (569711)
07-23-2010 12:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by GDR
07-23-2010 11:55 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
C S Lewis said; "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. " I believe that there is a lot to that. Does it constitute evidence? Not in the sense that you are meaning but just the same we are able to sense love, beauty, longing, fear etc. and I can't bring myself to believe that all just comes from a chance combination of atoms that just happened to exist in the first place. Or, does christianity give you an excuse to avoid the hard work of obtaining an accurate view of reality? Religion is often a way of outsourcing one's thinking.
I think that Christianity does the most coherent job of answering the big questions. Coherent, perhaps, but how do you know the answers are accurate? Do you even care?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by GDR, posted 07-23-2010 11:55 AM | | GDR has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 140 of 485 (569738)
07-23-2010 3:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by GDR
07-23-2010 11:55 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
Not in the sense that you are meaning but just the same we are able to sense love, beauty, longing, fear etc. and I can't bring myself to believe that all just comes from a chance combination of atoms that just happened to exist in the first place. Then it's not a function of evidence at all, but a matter of you simply choosing to believe that which makes you feel better about your place and importance in the universe, isn't it? Isn't that just wishful thinking? Isn't that just a head-long leap to the conclusion that you want to be true? Let me ask you this - suppose it were true that life was the result of chance chemistry - a stoichiometric and apparently unlikely outcome of unguided interactions of molecules. Suppose it were true that human thought was an entirely physical process of an entirely physical universe. What evidence would you find convincing of this fundamental truth? What evidence would it take for you to give up wishful thinking and your faith in the Christian God? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by GDR, posted 07-23-2010 11:55 AM | | GDR has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3121 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 141 of 485 (569741)
07-23-2010 3:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
07-23-2010 9:08 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
Jar writes: Me writes: However, what I do take issue with especially is the morally contradictory and hypocritical nature of God in the Bible. To me he comes off as an irrational, selfish, vengeful, ego-maniacal, cruel tyrant who commands murders, infanticide and ethnicide of entire civilizations and groups of human beings. It is as if the the concept of god evolves throughout the Bible along with the civilization that conceives him in the first place. To me the god of the Bible is too contrived and too morally and philosophically dynamic in his nature, especially after having claimed himself to never-change. Would the approach I suggested above help with the issues you raised just above? Yes, but that is just wishful thinking. There is no conclusive evidence that God exists in the first place, so why make the leap of faith that God exists but not as the Bible depicts him to be. Why believe anything in the Bible at all if this were the case? If so, than the Bible is just a loose collection of the history of the Jewish culture and early Christianity with many fictionalized stories. I think most of us non-believers already see the Bible in such light. Nothing new.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 9:08 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 142 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 3:52 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
Yes, but that is just wishful thinking. There is no conclusive evidence that God exists in the first place, so why make the leap of faith that God exists but not as the Bible depicts him to be. Why believe anything in the Bible at all if this were the case? If so, than the Bible is just a loose collection of the history of the Jewish culture and early Christianity with many fictionalized stories. I think most of us non-believers already see the Bible in such light. Nothing new. HUH? What in there or in what I have said even implies, no, even hints that I think you should believe in GOD?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 143 of 485 (569743)
07-23-2010 4:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by jar
07-23-2010 3:52 PM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
What in there or in what I have said even implies, no, even hints that I think you should believe in GOD? I think the question is not why you think DevilsA should believe in God, but why you seem to think you should. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 3:52 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 146 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 5:32 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3121 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 144 of 485 (569744)
07-23-2010 4:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by GDR
07-23-2010 11:55 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
GDR writes: When I conceive God I do it through the lens of Jesus. I agree that the God of the OT often doesn't reflect the model that we see in the NT. My views are that the historical aspects of the OT are written from the perspective of the writer in that they tended to justify the horrendous things they did by saying that God told then to do it. (Obviously the moral history of WW II would read very differently if the nazis had won.) So you do not believe the Bible is the unbiased, innerant (without error), Word of God as most fundamentalists do?
The OT of course isn't all like that. Isn't all like what? Not following.
I haven't read Pilgrims Progress but I should. I agree. It is about being able to take the focus off of ourselves and being able to focus on goodness purely for the love of that goodness. But where does goodness come from? Is what is morally 'good' commanded by God because it is inherently morally good? Or is it morally 'good' solely because it is commanded by God? This is a rather interesting dilema when supernatural entities who are the sole source of goodness are brought into play. If you want to read more on the subject of absolute morality look up the Euthyphro dilemma.
I agree, but you can also look at how something is written. The gospel accounts aren't written in the manner the way things were written at the time, they aren't what a 1st century Jew would have written based on the OT, they exhibit all sorts of failings by the main characters in the narrative etc. In the end it is nothing like anything that we would have expected if somebody were fabricating the whole account. I am not saying someone fabricated the whole account. IMHO it sounds like a historical figure named Jesus may have actually existed, but that the story of his life, miracles, etc was greatly embilleshed.
Actually it was only after the resurrection that Son of God came to mean that Jesus was one aspect of a triune god. Prior to that it was considered as a messianic term and a messiah was never expected to be anything more than a human anointed by God. It was after the resurrection and the meaning of the resurrection through the interpretation of some of the prophetic statements in the OT that the use of the Son of God came to mean something more than messiah. I agree with everything you have written above. You sound more like a deist than a tride and true theist. I think we have more in common than what you have with the fundamentalists.
C S Lewis said; "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. " As much as I admire Lewis, that is still a statement of belief, nothing more.
I believe that there is a lot to that. Does it constitute evidence? Not in the sense that you are meaning but just the same we are able to sense love, beauty, longing, fear etc. and I can't bring myself to believe that all just comes from a chance combination of atoms that just happened to exist in the first place. Love, beauty, longing, fear, etc are human derived concepts used to describe our feelings and emotions. You can't compare that to evidence for God. They are apples and oranges. Unless you are saying believing in God is soley a feeling or an emotion and has no basis in reality. In that case belief in God is like belief in Buddha or Nirvana.
I think that Christianity does the most coherent job of answering the big questions. Yet your take on Christianity is not in line with the majority of fundamental Christians out there. In otherwords everyone has a different take on what Christianity is. So basically Christianity in its present form, with tens of thousands of beliefs and denominations, is very incoherent in answering the big questions. Some believe in the trinity, some don't. Some believe God is going to allow non-believers into heaven, many don't. Some believe you have to be baptised to be saved, some don't, etc, etc, etc.
I know that. I contend that one of the reasons for that is that so much of Christianity is a watered down, often self-serving caricature of the real thing, but again that is my subjective POV. Christianity then becomes very easy to reject. I admit that I may be all wrong. As all of us may be. We are all human and thus have a limited understanding of the universe we live in. Maybe you are right. The real question is, where does the evidence lead us. Unfortunately, personal experience is too subjective and prone to bias or even outright fabrication and self-deception to be considered as credible evidence (otherwise why should we not believe that Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism is correct since billions of people believe that to be so).
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by GDR, posted 07-23-2010 11:55 AM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 154 by GDR, posted 07-24-2010 12:49 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3121 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 145 of 485 (569746)
07-23-2010 4:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by jar
07-23-2010 3:52 PM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
What in there or in what I have said even implies, no, even hints that I think you should believe in GOD? I understand what your getting at, I am not saying that you said or implied that I should believe in the God of the Bible. My questions were mainly retorical. Basically, I already read the Bible to be like what you say, a historical evolution of the concept of the Jewish and Christian god, who may or may not exist. My question about the inconsistent moral nature of God was mainly aimed a GDR. It was a question of why should we not only believe but worship the god of the Bible who is morally inconsistent and downright 'evil' by today's moral standards. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 3:52 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 147 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 5:33 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
crashfrog writes: I think the question is not why you think DevilsA should believe in God, but why you seem to think you should. That of course is irrelevant unless I was expecting someone else to agree with my belief.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2010 4:06 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
DevilsAdvocate writes: It was a question of why should we not only believe but worship the god of the Bible who is morally inconsistent and downright 'evil' by today's moral standards. Did you ask him if he did believe in the god of the Bible?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3121 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 148 of 485 (569757)
07-23-2010 5:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
07-23-2010 5:33 PM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
Did you ask him if he did believe in the god of the Bible? Yes, but that is a rather subjective question isn't it? One person's view of the god of the Bible different from another one's. This is true even of people in the same denomination and church. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 5:33 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 151 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 5:54 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 149 of 485 (569758)
07-23-2010 5:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 146 by jar
07-23-2010 5:32 PM
|
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
That of course is irrelevant unless I was expecting someone else to agree with my belief. Why? Why do you think you get a pass for irrational belief?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 5:32 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 150 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 5:53 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Evolution is agnostic
Huh? Are you saying you can't see how silly it is for you to ask me if I think I get some free pass for irrational belief? Did you just join EvC?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2010 5:42 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2