Evolution and the Existence of God

[FA_Q2]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

"religous convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want" can answer religous questions but never scientific questions.

That's why I don't let the religion of atheism tell me what science is. There is one book that has always got it right and that is the Bible. The rest come and go because they are based on what man hopes/prays/believes is true and has nothing to do with reality.

*sigh* Here we go again.

I do not actally expect you to understand what I am going to say since you are comming with that position to start with but I guess I will say it agin...

Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a lack of a religion. I am an atheist, I do not DISbelive in a god, I simply lack ANY belief in any god. For me, there has to be proof or evidence for a particular belief for me to believe in it and I have no personal evidence for god, therefore I choose not to believe in any religion. Atheism is NOT telling you what science is, science has set the rules that it operates in separate from whatever your personal beliefs are. There is mountains of evidence for evolution and that IS the science. Evolution is NOT an atheistic belief, it is a scientific theory and all there is to do for you to understand that is a good look at the evidence that has been gathered. If you choose to ignore all of it, that is your choice but do not come in here claiming that atheism is some kind of religion and that evolution is a construct of that. There are many in this very thread that are quite religious and manage to still understand evolution and the science behind it.

 

[Father Time]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

"religous convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want" can answer religous questions but never scientific questions.

That's why I don't let the religion of atheism tell me what science is. There is one book that has always got it right and that is the Bible. The rest come and go because they are based on what man hopes/prays/believes is true and has nothing to do with reality.

So do you believe that Christianity isn't a religion?

 

[amrchaos]

Some of my favorite threads here have been on the topic of evolution from both scientific perspectives and examining the implications the theory has with the faithful. I'd like to explore arguments made by proponents of evolution which proclaim that the theory somehow dispels the existence of God. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm curious as to what those faithful who contend that evolution is a threat or affront to the existence God base their beliefs on.

I can't reconcile a mutually exclusive relationship between the theory of evolution and the existence of God, and maintain that there isn't such a necessity between science and religion. Nevertheless, every discussion on the topic amounts to a fresh opportunity for atheists to lay into the religious on scientific bases, and for the religious to confront science with bases of faith.

Insight wanted:

How does the theory of evolution sway the plausibility deity or offend some religious communities?

Good question. But, I'm with you. I can't understand how evolution invalidates the existence of God either.

The theory of evolution gives mankind a quantifiable basis to understand the development of species. I think some of the faithful misunderstand this. I further think that those faithful find it hard to admit to being qualified as a species and not as the unquestioned masters of life on earth. Being a mammal seems dicey to some religious zealots.

And it's that pride that prevents them from accepting a scientific explaination of the development of mankind.

It invalidates the notion of god in the Judeo-Christian sense because God, in these religions, created man as a distinct being and as an image of god.

If evolution is true, then the image of god is not that of an average man. Adam could not be human. Also, man as an organism originated from some other organism and was not created in a form similiar to modern man.

In short, evolution undermines a major identifying concept purpose by JudeoChristian religions between god and man. This concept is, "God favors man".


Just remember, when you talk of God, you have to present the definition, many people think that the concept of god has the same definition in every religion. That is a fallacy and a very dishonest tactic used by theists to confuse their arguement.

 

[FA_Q2]

Some of my favorite threads here have been on the topic of evolution from both scientific perspectives and examining the implications the theory has with the faithful. I'd like to explore arguments made by proponents of evolution which proclaim that the theory somehow dispels the existence of God. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm curious as to what those faithful who contend that evolution is a threat or affront to the existence God base their beliefs on.

I can't reconcile a mutually exclusive relationship between the theory of evolution and the existence of God, and maintain that there isn't such a necessity between science and religion. Nevertheless, every discussion on the topic amounts to a fresh opportunity for atheists to lay into the religious on scientific bases, and for the religious to confront science with bases of faith.

Insight wanted:

How does the theory of evolution sway the plausibility deity or offend some religious communities?

Good question. But, I'm with you. I can't understand how evolution invalidates the existence of God either.

The theory of evolution gives mankind a quantifiable basis to understand the development of species. I think some of the faithful misunderstand this. I further think that those faithful find it hard to admit to being qualified as a species and not as the unquestioned masters of life on earth. Being a mammal seems dicey to some religious zealots.

And it's that pride that prevents them from accepting a scientific explaination of the development of mankind.

It invalidates the notion of god in the Judeo-Christian sense because God, in these religions, created man as a distinct being and as an image of god.

If evolution is true, then the image of god is not that of an average man. Adam could not be human. Also, man as an organism originated from some other organism and was not created in a form similiar to modern man.

In short, evolution undermines a major identifying concept purpose by JudeoChristian religions between god and man. This concept is, "God favors man".


Just remember, when you talk of God, you have to present the definition, many people think that the concept of god has the same definition in every religion. That is a fallacy and a very dishonest tactic used by theists to confuse their arguement.

Not true. It only undermines that concept when you attempt to define God in a narrow way. There is nothing within the Christian religion that requires God be defined in that way or a clear explanation of what 'designed in my image' actually means. It is obvious that this does not refer to the look but possibly to mean self awareness, consciousness, faith itself or a myriad of other things. Why the method of creation changes these things is beyond me. No matter the rout God may have taken, there is no real difference in the end result or faith of those involved.

 

[antagon]

Some of my favorite threads here have been on the topic of evolution from both scientific perspectives and examining the implications the theory has with the faithful. I'd like to explore arguments made by proponents of evolution which proclaim that the theory somehow dispels the existence of God. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm curious as to what those faithful who contend that evolution is a threat or affront to the existence God base their beliefs on.

I can't reconcile a mutually exclusive relationship between the theory of evolution and the existence of God, and maintain that there isn't such a necessity between science and religion. Nevertheless, every discussion on the topic amounts to a fresh opportunity for atheists to lay into the religious on scientific bases, and for the religious to confront science with bases of faith.

Insight wanted:

How does the theory of evolution sway the plausibility deity or offend some religious communities?

Good question. But, I'm with you. I can't understand how evolution invalidates the existence of God either.

The theory of evolution gives mankind a quantifiable basis to understand the development of species. I think some of the faithful misunderstand this. I further think that those faithful find it hard to admit to being qualified as a species and not as the unquestioned masters of life on earth. Being a mammal seems dicey to some religious zealots.

And it's that pride that prevents them from accepting a scientific explaination of the development of mankind.

It invalidates the notion of god in the Judeo-Christian sense because God, in these religions, created man as a distinct being and as an image of god.

If evolution is true, then the image of god is not that of an average man. Adam could not be human. Also, man as an organism originated from some other organism and was not created in a form similiar to modern man.

In short, evolution undermines a major identifying concept purpose by JudeoChristian religions between god and man. This concept is, "God favors man".


Just remember, when you talk of God, you have to present the definition, many people think that the concept of god has the same definition in every religion. That is a fallacy and a very dishonest tactic used by theists to confuse their arguement.

this isn't accurate. while there may be some within the judeochristian tradition which would uphold what you've argued, and argue against the findings of science in God's 'defense', the reality is different when considered closely.

the 'in our/my image' in the creation story employs a different word for God, and a different term for 'image' in its original hebrew text. what can be drawn from that is humanity's shared consciousness which God and the inhabitants of heaven that He speaks in concert with ('our') in the book of genesis possess. with that understanding, it is insightful that while many faiths attribute human-like consciousness to animals, even plants, that the bible from the get-go has reserved this characteristic for humans - antecedent to modern scientific observation by over 2500 years .

on to the bible's assessment of humanity's role in nature, i would argue that it is quite accurate, and that science is one of the ways which humanity has asserted the conquest and taming of the planet challenged by God in the creation story in and of itself.

apart from what literal extractions can be taken from scripture, the vast majority of christians and jews, dont find the words of the bible to be literals. rather, the bible is a book of insights, many which science has come around three millenia later to validate, rather than to disprove. in the end, the bible teaches the judeochristian diaspora that God created the universe. in that light, our study of the universe could at most offer information as to how.

 

[antagon]

"religous convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want" can answer religous questions but never scientific questions.

That's why I don't let the religion of atheism tell me what science is. There is one book that has always got it right and that is the Bible. The rest come and go because they are based on what man hopes/prays/believes is true and has nothing to do with reality.

*sigh* Here we go again.

I do not actally expect you to understand what I am going to say since you are comming with that position to start with but I guess I will say it agin...

Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a lack of a religion. I am an atheist, I do not DISbelive in a god, I simply lack ANY belief in any god. For me, there has to be proof or evidence for a particular belief for me to believe in it and I have no personal evidence for god, therefore I choose not to believe in any religion. Atheism is NOT telling you what science is, science has set the rules that it operates in separate from whatever your personal beliefs are. There is mountains of evidence for evolution and that IS the science. Evolution is NOT an atheistic belief, it is a scientific theory and all there is to do for you to understand that is a good look at the evidence that has been gathered. If you choose to ignore all of it, that is your choice but do not come in here claiming that atheism is some kind of religion and that evolution is a construct of that. There are many in this very thread that are quite religious and manage to still understand evolution and the science behind it.

while i would classify the bible as a book which 'man hopes/prays/believes is true' to a greater extent than any science book, and that THE LIGHT is proof-perfect of such man, i would also support the idea that among atheists there are many antitheists. where religion could loosely be defined as a belief system related to deity, none of these groups could be necessarily precluded from being religions. in support of science, i have seen non-scientists, particularly, taking up religious fervor for concepts which they loosely understand or even misunderstand, implying a faith-based association with science and the elevation of the scientific method to a type of deity. i believe the occasional interest in using scientific findings to disprove theories on God, or extending agnostic skepticism in deference to atheism as arguments against the existence of deity, constitute religious action, because of the faith element entailed there, too.

i must say that you have taken care to purify your atheistic belief to just that, and you fall outside of lite's generalization, as do the majority of scientists and adherents to evolution; but lite is responding, no doubt, to such antitheist faithful as amrchaos who seem to relish in ground taken or conceded in a battle between god and no-god.

i see evidence that those participating in this battle know little about their opponent, consistently.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, I will acknowledge that there are anti-theists as well as atheists and that an anti-theist is an actual religion in itself. One without any real tenants as the only real belief within them is a belief there cannot be a god. I often wonder why anyone would believe that way as it is a completely empty belief. There must be a rather empty hole within yourself to center your belief system around a negative rather than a positive. I think it may stem from a feeling that you are somehow less without religious convictions and the constant assault on you to get you to convert. Once I was asked what church I went to as though everyone attended church. This individual and I had been talking and hanging out for a few days and were becoming friends. When I answered that I did not attend any church because I was not religious he said we could no longer be acquainted. It was rather stunning as there was nothing different from the last second and that one. Atheists consistently see religion thrust at us and into the government that we must live under (like prayer in schools and the aforementioned teaching ID) and that seems to create this resentment toward religion in some people.


I would challenge that is NOT atheism, but another belief system entirely. It does not have a name but is certainly separate from the lack of religious conviction that makes one an atheist. I like the term anti-theist as that embodies what it truly is.

 

[antagon]

moderation is the key i think. some who have narrowed their ideas of God like your short-termed friend have acted contrary to Jesus in so doing. in respect to the evolution discussion i think these same folks have lowered their concept of God to the confines of their human understanding, or their preacher's interpretation of what the bible says. in that way they have exposed their concept to battery by science and these anti-theists.

i think that the anti-theists are experiencing the righteousness which our beliefs inspire, and acting on it in a way similar to religious zealots who feel threatened by the existence of other faiths.

 

[Foxfyre]

moderation is the key i think. some who have narrowed their ideas of God like your short-termed friend have acted contrary to Jesus in so doing. in respect to the evolution discussion i think these same folks have lowered their concept of God to the confines of their human understanding, or their preacher's interpretation of what the bible says. in that way they have exposed their concept to battery by science and these anti-theists.

i think that the anti-theists are experiencing the righteousness which our beliefs inspire, and acting on it in a way similar to religious zealots who feel threatened by the existence of other faiths.

A very astute observation, and you just came up about fourteen rungs on the 'okay ladder' for me.

I am a long way from being a religious fundamentalist, but those who believe Genesis 1:1 exactly as it is written and who believe Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish etc. don't bother me in the least. I would not attempt to dissuade them from their beliefs at all though, if they ask my opinion on that stuff, I will be honest with them. When I teach theology to a theologically mixed class, I do so on condition that we will explore all the theories, opinions, and conclusions out there, and they won't want to hear some of it, but nobody is expected to accept what I teach. I'm not out to shake anybody's faith.

And most of the people who attend classes like that are searching for something. They generally come in defensive about their own point of view, but they do want answers or at least perspectives on concepts that nag at their sense of credibility.

And the anti-theists seem to be drawn to the religious threads don't they? They spend enormous amount of time expressing their reasons that the theists are wrong. Even you, though intelligently, gently, and quite eloquently, reject any nonscientific explanation for phenomenon that in any way feels religious to you or that reminds you of religious notions that you have rejected.

The concepts might be mildly threatening, but I suspect they are nagging at the anti-theist's sense of credibility just as the Fundamentalist continues to be drawn to concepts that challenge his.

 

[antagon]

A very astute observation, and you just came up about fourteen rungs on the 'okay ladder' for me.

our beliefs are core to our identity. some of the strongest which humanity has, probably because of the relationship it has with our mortality, family, culture and community, is that of religion, god, and no-god.

i guess the axiom 'don't talk about religion and politics' is derived from the reactions such conversation can elicit. i was raised that these were some of the only conversations worth having. i simply don't know what to say on dates where reality t.v. constitutes small talk on current events.

anyhow, the phenomenon involving the non-faithful antitheist is quite interesting. it places their behavior in line with what i characterize as an existential desire for us to associate with a concept of deity, but presents the possibility that non-deity can take equal measure in satisfying it.

alas, true atheists seem to have let the urge go, preferring to diffuse the components of it to other aspects of nature and humanity.

 

[Gadawg73]

moderation is the key i think. some who have narrowed their ideas of God like your short-termed friend have acted contrary to Jesus in so doing. in respect to the evolution discussion i think these same folks have lowered their concept of God to the confines of their human understanding, or their preacher's interpretation of what the bible says. in that way they have exposed their concept to battery by science and these anti-theists.

i think that the anti-theists are experiencing the righteousness which our beliefs inspire, and acting on it in a way similar to religious zealots who feel threatened by the existence of other faiths.

A very astute observation, and you just came up about fourteen rungs on the 'okay ladder' for me.

I am a long way from being a religious fundamentalist, but those who believe Genesis 1:1 exactly as it is written and who believe Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish etc. don't bother me in the least. I would not attempt to dissuade them from their beliefs at all though, if they ask my opinion on that stuff, I will be honest with them. When I teach theology to a theologically mixed class, I do so on condition that we will explore all the theories, opinions, and conclusions out there, and they won't want to hear some of it, but nobody is expected to accept what I teach. I'm not out to shake anybody's faith.

And most of the people who attend classes like that are searching for something. They generally come in defensive about their own point of view, but they do want answers or at least perspectives on concepts that nag at their sense of credibility.

And the anti-theists seem to be drawn to the religious threads don't they? They spend enormous amount of time expressing their reasons that the theists are wrong. Even you, though intelligently, gently, and quite eloquently, reject any nonscientific explanation for phenomenon that in any way feels religious to you or that reminds you of religious notions that you have rejected.

The concepts might be mildly threatening, but I suspect they are nagging at the anti-theist's sense of credibility just as the Fundamentalist continues to be drawn to concepts that challenge his.

Well said