|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Theistic Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7041 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Do you ever get the feeling that God is like a little kid sitting over an anthill with a magnifying glass?
------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
Did you ever hear the phrase, "food of the gods"? Reminds me of how little-children not only investigate anthills; they eat some of the ants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanos6 Inactive Member |
To frog:
The reasons I, as a Deist, believe in a God who probably has not intervened since the moment of Creation are several. If you'll bear with me, I 'll go through them. 1) The old 'First Cause' argument (was it Voltaire who proposed this, or am I mixing up my philosophers?). 2) The human soul. You may disagree with me, and if so, I feel we have no choice BUT to agree to disagree. But I feel that humans have a soul, something that exists separate of the matter and energy that makes up our corporeal forms. The soul or spirit or whatever you wish to call it cannot be measured or explained by purely scientific terms. As such, it cannot have come from our law-governed universe, but rather, is a direct creation of God (perhaps the only time since Creation that He intervened). I have others but...it's late and my mind is on the fritz. ------------------"When mankind falls into conflict with nature, monsters are born." -Professor Hayashida, Godzilla 1985
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The old 'First Cause' argument (was it Voltaire who proposed this, or am I mixing up my philosophers?). Easily dismissed. Causality is a property of the universe - not even a universal property, as it doesn't hold at the quantum scale - and so there's no reason to suppose it extends beyond the boundaries of time and space. Ergo there's no need for the universe to be caused for it to exist, even if it's finite in time and space.
The human soul. You may disagree with me, and if so, I feel we have no choice BUT to agree to disagree. But I feel that humans have a soul, something that exists separate of the matter and energy that makes up our corporeal forms. Then it's a contradiction in terms. If it's beyond matter and energy and can't be affected by them, then there's no way you can know it exists, because it can never interact with anything in the universe. Therefore Ockham's Razor removes it, because natural law sufficies to explain the phenomenon of human consiousness. On the other hand, if you suppose the soul must interact with the physical world, it becomes falsifiable. It should be possible to determine the difference between souled matter and unsouled matter. Since we can determine that there's no difference, we know that such a soul does not exist. Either way you're in a bind - the only souls that can exist are the ones that have no effect on the universe. There's no other option. So what's the difference between my conception of the universe, with humans who don't have or need souls, and yours, which is just like mine, except that you add something that has no effect and cannot be observed? As Rrhain likes to say, "why add the chocolate sprinkles?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanos6 Inactive Member |
Because it makes it taste better. But seriously. This is where it simply boils down to Faith. You might think it's just a 'security blanket' we use to keep ourselves shielded from the thought of Oblivion beyond Death, and hell, I won't deny that partially, it is.
But again, it's something more. Something I can't really find the right words to describe. So I'm not even going to try because a substandard attempt wouldn't do it justice. BTW, frog, let me compliment you. You have (or at least seem to have ) a lot more class than most atheists in your position, many of whom tend to denigrate all believers in any deity as moronic fools. You deserve a commendation. ------------------"When mankind falls into conflict with nature, monsters are born." -Professor Hayashida, Godzilla 1985
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
a lot more class than most atheists in your position, many of whom tend to denigrate all believers in any deity as moronic fools. Gee, I hope that most of us wouldn't fall into this. The problem is that here you are seeing the reaction to a small subset of believers. They could be called the "extremists" of believers and do tend to bring out some more extreme reactions. That said, I will admit that a significant number of atheists are not just un believers but are militantly anti belief too. Myself I think I tend to vary depending on who I am talking too. I just spent a pleasant day visiting a couple of old friends who are believers (she is a minister, in fact) and part of the discussion was about religious issues. We get along famously. I have also had discussions with others who I don't get along with so very well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Something I can't really find the right words to describe The concept of "emergant properties" can sometimes help one understand things that are hard to explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Something I can't really find the right words to describe. So I'm not even going to try because a substandard attempt wouldn't do it justice. Well, you may very well have a gut feeling that tells you what to believe. But stop and ponder for a moment - how much of your gut is really culture? Would you still have a gut feeling to believe in God if you had been raised in a Buddist culture? Or Moslem? Why do you call your god "God" and not "Supremo" or "Sky-Father" or any other names? yes, the word "God" may seem the most right to you. But ponder if that would still be so if your cultures word for "god" was something else. If in fact the entire nature of their god was different. You put a lot more stock in feelings, I guess, than I do. Given the demonstratable biochemical and cultural basis for feeling, I don't see why you would.
You have (or at least seem to have ) a lot more class than most atheists in your position, many of whom tend to denigrate all believers in any deity as moronic fools. Well, I did used to be a believer, and since I don't think was any stupider then than I am now, I don't think what you believe has much to do with how smart you are. In fact studies show that it's generally the higher-IQ folks that wind up believing the really stupid stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
It has occured to me, that an individual might be BOTH a theistic and atheistic evolutionist, at the same time.
Ken Miller, author of "Finding Darwin's God", might fall into this area. Might one consider ones self as a "Theistic Evolutionist", in that your faith is that God is indeed behind it all? At the same time, might one consider ones self an "Atheistic Evolutionist", in that 1) Evolutionary considerations are irrelevant to your Christian faith, and 2) Your Christian faith is irrelevant to your considerations of evolution? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
The theme of "theistic evolutionist" has been coming up in other topics, including "What is a Creationist". I thought about starting a "What is a Theistic Evolutionist?" topic, but thought it be better that I give this one a bump.
I'm sure there's a nice, precise definition of "Theistic Evolutionist" somewhere. 1) What I suspect it is, is an evolutionist who believes God had a (substantial?) hand in guiding the paths that evolution has taken. 2) Another definition might be - An evolutionist who believes that God was ultimately behind it all, but did not actively guide the evolutionary pathways. Or somewhere in between these two.
MrHambre points out that Kenneth Miller (of "Finding Darwin's God) does not consider himself to be a theistic evolutionist.
quote: Earlier in that topic, I mistakingly called Miller an "old Earth creationist". I had meant that as in "Ultimately God is behind it all". I had modified my view to the also apparently wrong "Miller is a theistic evolutionist". Moose ps: TrueCreation, currently inactive in this forum, has changed his position considerably from that of early in this topic string. [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Evolution and the Bible (creation) are not compatible because evolution puts death, bloodshed and disease before the fall of man. Whereas God made a perfect world and called it 'very good'. So either we listen to what god actually said or we interpret the scriptures and put death and suffering before the fall of man. Like ive said before, i would not like to worship a god that makes a corrupt world full of death & suffering. I mean isnt that why Charles Darwin lost his faith? Because he could not see God in the cursed world of today? The truth behind that is that its mans fault for what we see. Disobeying God meant that the earth was cursed, not upheld by God, and man is judged.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 08-06-2004 04:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Evolution and the Bible (creation) are not compatible ... Actually, as I have said in many other posts, that is only true in the minds of a few minor literalist, fundamental cults. Genesis itself is not consistent and if one takes them literally, then the second chapter of the Bible creates and insoluable problem. If Chapter 1 of Genesis is literally true, then Chapter 2 of Genesis is literally false. As Bishop Sims said in his Pastoral letter supporting theach Evolution and opposing theaching Creationism,
In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier. Evolution and Christianity, or any religion, are not incompatible. In fact, it helps us learn about the HOW that GOD used to create this wonderous universe. As Bisop Sims summed it up in that Pastoral Letter,
Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a sixday week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were. Historic creedal Christianity joyfully insists on God as sovereign and frees the human spirit to trust and seek that sovereignty in a world full of surprises. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
This OLD topic seems to have died with some good content at the end.
Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
Moose writes: I consider myself a cosmological creationist. God created the material and allowed nature to take its course. The theme of "theistic evolutionist" has been coming up in other topics, including "What is a Creationist". I thought about starting a "What is a Theistic Evolutionist?" topic, but thought it be better that I give this one a bump.I'm sure there's a nice, precise definition of "Theistic Evolutionist" somewhere. 1) What I suspect it is, is an evolutionist who believes God had a (substantial?) hand in guiding the paths that evolution has taken. 2) Another definition might be - An evolutionist who believes that God was ultimately behind it all, but did not actively guide the evolutionary pathways. Or somewhere in between these two. Even here on earth, it was foreknown what humans would be and how they would grow and decide their fate. God planned Jesus before humans were even created.(or evolved) Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Shrug....
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024