Bible discussion thread

[RJKarl]

Fundamentalists don't get the concept that evolution proves the existence of God rather disproves it. How could that something intricate, perfect and set over so many millions of years have been by anything other than a supreme being?

 

[Shorty]

Sad commentary in and of itself. Simple acceptance is a pretty far cry from loving embrace of all of God's children. I'm a big fan of Hebrews 13.

1 Let brotherly love continue.

2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Actually, I'd bet it's easier for a man like Billy Graham to love gays as God's children than it is for him to be accepting of their lifestyle.

 

[TownieDeac]

I agree. In trying to understand the universe, I think scientists and theologians are ultimately searching for the same thing.

I'm hesitant to go that far. The frameworks of understanding and tools/methodology for getting there are so different. I do agree that theologians and scientists both want to learn more about the universe, but they seem to be in service of far different things, and not both just trying for some abstract "understanding of the universe."

 

[Shorty]

I'm hesitant to go that far. The frameworks of understanding and tools/methodology for getting there are so different. I do agree that theologians and scientists both want to learn more about the universe, but they seem to be in service of far different things, and not both just trying for some abstract "understanding of the universe."

You misunderstood me. Imagine scientists and theologians each on their respective path, meeting at the same end point.

 

[sailordeac]

I agree. In trying to understand the universe, I think scientists and theologians are ultimately searching for the same thing.

Some say, and I pretty much agree with them - although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise - that science is about how the universe works, while religion is about why the universe exists. Perhaps the distinction is a false one or unnecessary but it does help to draw attention to the fact that the focus points of science and religion are different.

Galileo said it similarly when he said something to the effect that science is about how the heavens go, while religion is about how to go to heaven.

 

[RevDeac06]

Some say, and I pretty much agree with them - although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise - that science is about how the universe works, while religion is about why the universe exists. Perhaps the distinction is a false one or unnecessary but it does help to draw attention to the fact that the focus points of science and religion are different.

Galileo said it similarly when he said something to the effect that science is about how the heavens go, while religion is about how to go to heaven.

I can see the logic of this, though I'd say something more like "science is about how the universe works and exists, while religion is about why the universe exists and why it works the way that it does."

 

[sailordeac]

Fundamentalists don't get the concept that evolution proves the existence of God rather disproves it. How could that something intricate, perfect and set over so many millions of years have been by anything other than a supreme being?

The basic difficulty between religion and the theory of evolution is that Darwin claimed that he could find no ultimate goal toward which evolution was moving, while religion is essentially about the ultimate goal. Mind you, Darwin did not claim that there was no ultimate goal for evolution, he just said he could not find any scientific evidence for such a goal.

The argument that complexity demonstrates the existence of God is one of St. Thomas' five logical proofs for the existence God. David Hume, applying extreme skepticism, found it - as well as the other four - wanting. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

 

[Rooster]

Fundamentalists don't get the concept that evolution proves the existence of God rather disproves it. How could that something intricate, perfect and set over so many millions of years have been by anything other than a supreme being?

Agreed. Because atheists have decided that evolution somehow "disproves" God, they use it as a weapon. Many well meaning, but misguided evangelicals decided that since atheists have adopted evolution as evidence there is no God that they therefore must disprove evolution and "defend God" (as if He needs defending). This leads to junk science (I'm looking at your creation museum) and other stretching of logic by evangelicals that is unnecessary, self defeating, and disheartening to their children whose minds are blown when they get to college. Genesis is not about "how" its about "Who"

 

[TownieDeac]

Evolution hardly proves, disproves, or is even associated with the notion of a God/creator/etc to me and most scientists. It's a separate question altogether, between the beginning and ongoing, changing process of life on Earth, and the geological/physical formation of the Earth.

 

[RevDeac06]

Evolution hardly proves, disproves, or is even associated with the notion of a God/creator/etc to me and most scientists. It's a separate question altogether, between the beginning and ongoing, changing process of life on Earth, and the geological/physical formation of the Earth.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[dmcheatw]

I really don't think that the role of science is to disprove the existence of God, and trying to use science to prove that God does not exist would appear to be a futile misuse of science.

yes, you're right. depending on how you look at it you could say the two are neither adverserial or mutually exclusive, despite the frequent friction.

 

[TWDeac]

I do take semantic umbrage with the ongoing use of "disprove" here, because you don't use science to prove and disprove things, you create hypotheses and design experiments to gather data to support or not support those hypotheses. And I don't really think Dawkins, Hitchens et alia really even tried empirical approaches towards disproving or discrediting God. I think in Dawkins and Hawking's case, there's a lot of "the statistical unlikelihood of a creator" talk, and Hitchens attacked the bible and a lot of quack theologians head on. I also think it's semantically important to note that most scientists are far more concerned with the observable, knowable world, whereas use of empiricism is a fairly large obstacle for most theologians.

Otherwise, I generally agree.

This. You don't use science to disprove things.

 

[TWDeac]

Agreed. Because atheists have decided that evolution somehow "disproves" God, they use it as a weapon. Many well meaning, but misguided evangelicals decided that since atheists have adopted evolution as evidence there is no God that they therefore must disprove evolution and "defend God" (as if He needs defending). This leads to junk science (I'm looking at your creation museum) and other stretching of logic by evangelicals that is unnecessary, self defeating, and disheartening to their children whose minds are blown when they get to college. Genesis is not about "how" its about "Who"

I'm trying to think of an atheist that I know(many) that uses evolution to disprove the existence of god. I really am drawing a blank.

 

[Rooster]

I'm trying to think of an atheist that I know(many) that uses evolution to disprove the existence of god. I really am drawing a blank.

Not sure I follow, maybe I am thinking about it incorrectly. An atheist needs evolution (in general), a believer doesn't necessarily need it to explain their world view. By definition if you are an atheist you need an alternative to how the world was created instead of a creator - hence evolution strengthens the atheist view that there is no God. That becomes the default atheist explanation for the creation (I am sure there are others). If the atheists you know don't use evolution as part of their reasoning for their faith in no God, what do they use? I would think evolution would have to play some role in their reasoning. Modern evangelicals, rather than having evolution and God coexist, have decided to oppose atheists and evolution. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that has led groups of believers to abandon science, start their own colleges that support their junk science, and to twist scripture to fit their view. Its a shame, because so many of our institutions of higher learning were started by religious people.

 

[TownieDeac]

Not sure I follow, maybe I am thinking about it incorrectly. An atheist needs evolution (in general), a believer doesn't necessarily need it to explain their world view. By definition if you are an atheist you need an alternative to how the world was created instead of a creator - hence evolution strengthens the atheist view that there is no God. That becomes the default atheist explanation for the creation (I am sure there are others). If the atheists you know don't use evolution as part of their reasoning for their faith in no God, what do they use? I would think evolution would have to play some role in their reasoning. Modern evangelicals, rather than having evolution and God coexist, have decided to oppose atheists and evolution. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that has led groups of believers to abandon science, start their own colleges that support their junk science, and to twist scripture to fit their view. Its a shame, because so many of our institutions of higher learning were started by religious people.

Atheists don't need anything by definition. You're letting your view of theistic religions shape your view of atheists. Atheism is just a lack of theism. I don't know how the universe was created, but I reject the notion of a creator-being. I reject the notion of a beginning and end. The fact that many atheists support the notion of evolution is not at all central or even germane to their atheism. However, since evolution, to many fundamentalist theists, runs counter to their sense of textual literalism, it is important to conflate the two (evolution and faith).

 

[Rooster]

Atheists don't need anything by definition. You're letting your view of theistic religions shape your view of atheists. Atheism is just a lack of theism. I don't know how the universe was created, but I reject the notion of a creator-being. I reject the notion of a beginning and end. The fact that many atheists support the notion of evolution is not at all central or even germane to their atheism. However, since evolution, to many fundamentalist theists, runs counter to their sense of textual literalism, it is important to conflate the two (evolution and faith).

I am not sure how evolution is not central or germane to many atheists faith in the absence of God. I guess if you are an agnostic atheist then that would be true. But many atheists believe that evolution is the way in which the world was made and since their view of evolution does not involve a creator it supports their atheism. I think the two are more tied together for a lot of atheists than they are for you. Perhaps there are other views that I am unaware of on how the world was made without a creator and some atheists ascribe to those. Most of the atheists that I know are intelligent, logical people so the agnostic atheism you describe is not fulfilling for them. Evolution provides explanation and logic for their beliefs that they don't believe are found in faith in a creator. To me, the agnostic atheist has to have just as much faith in their being no God as I do in there being a God. If one doesn't care about how the world was made then agnostic atheism is fine.

 

[RevDeac06]

Evolution hardly proves, disproves, or is even associated with the notion of a God/creator/etc to me and most scientists. It's a separate question altogether, between the beginning and ongoing, changing process of life on Earth, and the geological/physical formation of the Earth.

Just quoting this, not sure how it doesn't clear up the issue being discussed in the past few posts.

 

[wakephan09]

However, since evolution, to many fundamentalist theists, runs counter to their sense of textual literalism, it is important to conflate the two (evolution and faith).

Don't you mean the reverse here?

 

[TownieDeac]

There is no science to support the idea that evolution describes the process in which the world was made, Rooster. The geological formation of the Earth is completely different than the biological processes that conspired to create the life therein. The world began (for most scientists) 4.6 billion years ago but life didn't appear and start evolving til 3.6 billion years ago. Scientists could correct me on my timeline there, but creation and evolution are not the same conversation, I reiterate.

 

[TownieDeac]

Don't you mean the reverse here?

I think I meant it's important for them to conflate the two when they are trying to paint a picture about atheists.