Let's start with knowledge and truth. I think atheists and theists alike are concerned with truth and gaining knowledge of the truth. Anyone that thinks that reality is relative, or that there are several valid realities, please keep these notions to yourself.
Critical thinking and science.
Something that is shared by a majority of theists and atheists alike. Neither has a claim to it. Science is an exercise in critical thinking. It is a method; commonly confused with it's findings. In other words, evolution is not science, but an arrived conclusion from using the method of critical thinking known as science. Not every scientist is going to accept the conclusion, but in this case many will argue that the evidence is overwhelming. So I think we can all agree that science is wonderful, but scientific conclusions are debatable.
Critical thinking and faith.
I have been misunderstood as one that thinks all people of faith are not critical thinkers. This is not the case at all. Many people of faith are quite good at critical thinking and much more knowledgeable in the fields of science then I am. Darwin himself was a theist. Obviously I do not believe that his faith hindered his critical thinking skills with respect to evolutionary science.
But I do believe that faith in literal translation of scripture can hinder critical thinking. There are mountains of evidence to support certain scientific conclusions, yet faith in certain religious ideas can completely bind one to the evidence and therefore hinder critical thinking. Faith in a creator is not such a hindrance as I have said, because there is nothing that says that a creator could not create through the processes that science is intended to observe and describe.
Some of the main causes of dispute between faith and science in this modern time seems to be:
Evolutionary abiogenesis vs. creationist abiogenesis
The age of the earth
Evolution vs. Microevolution
Many theists that dispute evolution science believe in "microevolution" but not "macroevolution". But what they don't understand is that there is no such scientific distinction. Evolution is evolution. JamesM recently said,...
Quote:
Then we get into the observable evolution within species and jump to the macroevolution between species which is a theory. Believing that one frog evolves into another frog does not mean that the frog continued into another animal.
First of all, one type of frog IS a different species then another type of frog. What I think he means is, evolution can change one species into another species (microevolve?), but an animal from one genus cannot evolve into another genus (macroevolve?). I assure you, there is just no such distiction between types of evolution in science. And to suggest this shows a lack of understanding of the science of evolution.
I think this misunderstanding is based on the faith that God created all of the animals separately and according to kind. Birds in the sky, beasts on the ground and fish in the sea. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. The point is, if you concede to fact that animals can evolve into different species, then you must concede the fact that animals can evolve into different genus (and so forth), families, orders, classes, phylums, and kingdoms. Unless.....
UNLESS......you have a different opinion as to the Age of the earth. Obviously if you don't agree that the earth is very, very old, then you cannot accept that there was enough time to evolve all of these different species from a common ancestor.
__________________
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
I think this misunderstanding is based on the faith that God created all of the animals separately and according to kind.
Here lies the crux of the whole problem that I see with you and others in our little community.
I believe that God did create all of the animals separately and according to their kind. I also believe He's made them in such a way that all animals including man adapt to their respective enviroment(s).
Noone knows how old the world is. Period. You can take the scriptures apart, and do the math and come up with a figure, but does that make it so? I think not.
Ultimately, (my opinion), Science and Faith will point to the same conclusion.....there are going to be a lot of, "critical" thinkers with flat foreheads......
People get caught up in the concept of absolute knowledge in these debates. Because absolute knowledge is intangible it is a generally useless concept. We can't know anything absolutely but I can say, for example, that there is no such thing as fairies in an everyday practical sense. This is not to say that at no time ever in history has something like a fairy ever existed but rather, given that beliefs inform actions and in a practical sense of knowledge, a belief in fairies is unreasonable and potentially harmful.
Likewise, thiests assert that a god exists, athiests reject this assertion on the rational grounds that thiests have not met their burden of proof through evidence or reasoned argument (anecdotal evidence and/or personal experience don't count, e.g. we prayed for Uncle Frank and he got better; or I feel a presence...)
For gnostic and particularly agnostic athiesm, the practical aspect of knowledge revolves around the idea that beliefs inform actions. This means that just because we have a particular belief doesn't mean it can't be wrong (for example the belief that Elvis is still alive) and inform an irrational and potentially harmful action (e.g. buying tickets to an Elvis concert). Athiests (gnostic and agnostic) seem more interested in eliminating as many of their untrue beliefs as possible.
Agnostic athiesm is not really a position that requires defense. Gnostic athiesm and thiesm are. Religion, for whatever reason, has long been considered a position that does not require a reasoned argument or evidence to justify. Ironically, there is no other position that is immune to these sorts of criticism (this is why we snicker when people say they believe Elvis is still alive, that they were abducted by aliens, that faries exist, or that black cats are unlucky, etc.)
Humans are creatures of meaning and reason even though we don't always implement these affects. We are capable of assigning values of 'true' and 'false' and appreciating the shades of grey inbetween. Sometimes we adopt positions or perform actions that 'feel good' or are comforting for all manner of reasons, rational and healthy or not.
People get caught up in the concept of absolute knowledge in these debates.
Of course we do. As I have said, this does not mean that reality is relative. I agree that we should never put query to bed on an assumption of absolute knowledge. Everything we know could be wrong. But we are all in a process of understanding and this is our current situation.
Quote:
I believe that God did create all of the animals separately and according to their kind. I also believe He's made them in such a way that all animals including man adapt to their respective enviroment(s).
Understood, Moose. I now know your position on the matter. If I'm not mistaken, this is basically the same as JamesM's statements, that life can "microevolve" from one species to another, but not "macroevolve" from one genus to another. Like a domestic horse, E. caballus, can evolve into a wild horse, E. ferus, and possibly further still, if the environment demands into E. zebra. The DNA of these species shows a very clear, and very small scale evolution.
So what the person that argues in favor of "microevolution" is conceding, is that populations or pools of DNA can change or evolve from original pools or populations. That if populations become separated by different environments with unique demands, then they can evolve into different species like the horse and the zebra. But that this process cannot, for whatever reason, continue until the populations are "too different", or they break their notion of "kind". This distinction, "kind", has no relevance in taxonomy.
I also understand that you, Moose, don't claim to know the age of the earth, or at least you don't believe any proposed age. I have heard you denounce any sort of scientific dating methods and now I have heard you denounce any sort of historical accounting of dating. So if you can accept "microevolution", but not evolution that effects this notion of "kind", what is the reason for this?
Is it the age of the earth that is not sufficient for "macroevolution"? Is it simply the one scripture that claims life was created in order of "kind"? What prevents life from evolving beyond "kind"?
Very interesting posts. If intuition is comprised of very quick logical processing that we're unaware of, I wonder if faith is like a kind of super-intuition, so that it is not completely non-logical, but rather, uses a logic beyond our awareness.
There are different kinds of knowing. We cannot prove that love is real, but we know that it is. We cannot define what music is or explain why it moves us. But it does.
As for evolution, I don't see how macro evolution can be denied, when we have things like aquatic mammals.
I don't see why evolution and creationism can't coexist. I think it would be pretty smart of a creator to allow evolution an adaptation to occur in his creations. But thats just me.
In reference to a recent disagreement with you as well Moose, over the topic of Abiogenesis, I made the statement that we all believe in Abiogenesis. Your answer was that we do not. And to paraphrase, that Abiogenesis was debunked along with Spontaneous Generation. I believe this is just a semantic argument that we can reconcile.
Spontaneous Generation as a retro idea, was that a pile of hay can create a rat. Or that a steak would spontaneously generate maggots. Yes, this notion is debunked. But Abiogenesis is a new concept meant to include all other, non-debunked ideas of the creation of life. This would include the creationist notion of God's creation of life. A clay to flesh notion. As well as an evolutionary notion of inorganic matter evolving into organic matter and on to what we consider life. Regardless, I think we all agree that life did not always exist, but was either created or evolved, and this beginning is described as Abiogenesis.
With this new understanding of what Abiogenesis means, there are theists that will concede that God used HIS process of evolution to create life. There are still other theists that rely on scripture, and claim that life was created with clay and magic "breath of god".
I assume that you Moose, are influenced by this scripture to come to your conclusions about this. That if life was arranged according to to "kind" from the start, then magic breath is a satisfactory conclusion. Is there any serious inquiry into this mechanism by the theist community? Is it fair to suggest that faith in this conclusion has stifled further understanding and therefore further knowledge of this mechanism?
I don't see why evolution and creationism can't coexist. I think it would be pretty smart of a creator to allow evolution an adaptation to occur in his creations. But thats just me.
If you see God as analogous to a programmer writing code, this makes a lot of sense.
I don't see why evolution and creationism can't coexist. I think it would be pretty smart of a creator to allow evolution an adaptation to occur in his creations. But thats just me.
It does in fact coexist in the minds of some very educated theists. Darwin himself felt as though a God designed this process. It is scripture which has created the reluctance in people's acceptance. And including humans into the animal kingdom. This is tough for some people to accept.
If you see God as analogous to a programmer writing code, this makes a lot of sense.
There was an excellent book I never got that compared God with perfection with numbers. And its funny: if you heard a story how Moses received the stories of the Bible, received them without spaces and he had to divide up the words himself. I see this as getting a data stream.
But I don't think its that extreme nor do I agree with the above, but its something to think about.
No, I see God as someone who designed nature in such a way that life is precious and life's number one priority is to survive, and life will do brutal and destructive things to accomplish that goal. I can't explain everything i said, just something I feel.
Yes, I'm odd.
It does in fact coexist in the minds of some very educated theists. Darwin himself felt as though a God designed this process. It is scripture which has created the reluctance in people's acceptance. And including humans into the animal kingdom. This is tough for some people to accept.
Is there a Protestant/Catholic split (I realize Darwin was Anglican) in terms of the willingness for theistsic scientists to accept evolution?
No, I see God as someone who designed nature in such a way that life is precious and life's number one priority is to survive, and life will do brutal and destructive things to accomplish that goal. I can't explain everything i said, just something I feel.
Yes, I'm odd.
Not odd, this seems right, except I'm not sure if this is in God's design methodology. I believe that nature is infused with the force of being. And that is what God is, by definition, "I am Who Am." God is being itself.
Non-living things, like rocks, are infused with being simply by virtue of the fact that they exist. Living things, like plants, express being at a more complete level because they are alive. Sentient beings, at an even more fulfilled level, and self-conscious beings, at the highest level possible. That is what is meant, I think, by humans being made in God's image, (along with the fact that humans, like God, can create.)
None of this tells me, by the way, that God is, by nature, good, except for the fact that being is, by definition, a greater good than non-being. So if God is the personification of being, then perhaps that makes God the ultimate (or primary) good.
None of this tells me, by the way, that God is, by nature, good, except for the fact that being is, by definition, a greater good than non-being. So if God is the personification of being, then perhaps that makes God the ultimate (or primary) good.
thank you so much for something intelligent and truly profound to think about for the next few days, if not weeks.
I have to think free will is included in there somewhere as in the 'image of God' and/or self awareness.
Definitely something to ponder.
Also, a fun movie to watch is one call PI. It's an independent black and white film, but cool nonetheless. It has many concepts of mathematics and God.
I have to think free will is included in there somewhere as in the 'image of God' and/or self awareness.
It is cool to think and talk about. I don't want to take the thread too much off track. But where I have a hard time is how suffering fits into this. Being+suffering doesn't seem like an intrisnic good.Trying to bring this back on track to the thread, evolution and natural selection require suffering, right, because some individuals must be killed to further evolution.
s there a Protestant/Catholic split (I realize Darwin was Anglican) in terms of the willingness for theistic scientists to accept evolution?
I don't know of a denominational split. I know the old pope endorsed evolution as god's plan. Benedict has since denounced this.
This divide seems to be education based. Not to say that people that don't believe in evolution are not intelligent, but that they are not educated in evolutionary processes. Some very educated evolutionists include people of faith in all denominations.
Quote:
Non-living things, like rocks, are infused with being simply by virtue of the fact that they exist. Living things, like plants, express being at a more complete level because they are alive. Sentient beings, at an even more fulfilled level, and self-conscious beings, at the highest level possible.
The ancient Greeks actually had a more realistic view of existence. While they still attributed consciousness with a soul of sorts. Matter was not separated into life and non-life. Organic and non-organic. This idea is actually becoming accepting again. Matter evolves from simply to more complex only. Any line we draw to separate "kinds" is arbitrary. Once upon a time viruses were not counted as life even though they have their own DNA. Now, we could possibly include the components of DNA as life. Or we could discard such as notion at all. All matter, more or less complex.
ADVERTISEMENT In association with Amazon, a portion of your purchase helps support LoveShack.org
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:41 PM.
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Linear Mode
