Evolution interferring with religion?

[inside the sun]

How the hell does Evolution disturb religious beliefs. They can both go together, as they should be able to. And its sad there are Fundamentalists and people who take religion literally. I myself just got into Religion, well spirtual paths, i read a book by Gary Zukav, "The Seat of the Soul" and um, Jack Kornfields-"A path with heart." Siddhartha, was the first book to start me on that path. yeah eastern beliefs, and im on the West. But anyways, i see all religions and spirtual paths as the same, there all just about self improvment, finding one self, and so on. Second, if there is a creator, and he created organisms, he could have just you know, created everything, and then, over time it evolved, theres creating and evolution in one together, working together. But maybe the (labels coming, high school dirty habits) Fundamentalists, are afraid, because at one point they didnt want science proving the earth isn't the center of the universe and now they dont want it to be proved that the Creator didn't create us. Because if evolution is true, i guess it says we weren't the created product, we just evolved from something else, that was the orginal product, and maybe they fear that makes us less um, CENTER of attention, EVERYTHING REVOLVING around us. I dunno, i don't get these people. They are people like us, with opinions and beliefs, yet, the difference is, they try to force them on others, and have killed over them, and well, i guess other people do that too, can't just pick on them, but they make selves targests, i dunno. :)

[Buffy]

It doesn't. Its just the left over religious dogma from the days when religion's main purpose was as a political mechanism for maintaining control over the masses. "The Divine Right of Kings" was the middle ages evolution from the ancient notion of Kings actually being considered deieties (as was the case of the Pharoahs of Egypt among other empires). Fundamentalism has come and gone, but its latest incarnation--which can be found by the way in multiple religions including not only Baptists, but also Wahabi Islam and Orthodox Judaism--is relatively modern coming from sectarian divisions that go back only to the 18th and 19th centuries, and really derive from a revived need to "keep the flock" due to the proliferation of sectarian splits over time. The hallmark of these splits has been that the most conservative groups become absolutist in their interpretation of the relevant scripture, and use the threat of death in various guises as a reason not to abandon those conservative beliefs. The relevant concept in current Fundamentalist Christian teachings of course centers around the Rapture, in which only the true believers in the fundamentalist faith will be spared the horrors of the Tribulation by miraculuously rising to heaven without notice. Even if you are a Catholic or an Episcopalian, you will have to survive the Tribulation and be judged. If you're a Jew or a Muslim, you'd better convert before judgement day to the Fundamentalist Christian faith or you will for sure be condemned to eternal damnation on Judgement day. If you don't believe me, read the "Left Behind" series. Yow, is that mean or what?

 

Bottom line: its quite easy to be religious and believe in Evolution, Cosmology and all the rest of the stuff we talk about here, but you'll still be called a "godless humanist" by the fundamentalists. Realize its just that they're scared: its what all bullies do....keep the faith!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

Some cannot understand how life as we know it today could have evolved from life that was created. They are the extremists. I believe this is likely where the intelligent design crowd came from, they think life is so complex that it had to be designed, it could not possibly have evolved. Basically their whole group is simply close-minded. Don't let it bother you. Believe what you want and keep an open mind. Anything is possible until someone proves that it's not.

[IrishEyes]

I'm going to try to ignore the obvious insults and just answer what was, I think, the original question. I am also going to ask that you guys watch how you label people. I can't remember the last time I called anyone around here a "godless humanist", or told anyone that they'd "for sure be condemned to eternal damnation on Judgement day", even though I am what is considered a Fundamentalist, and I'm a Baptist at that. And no, Buffy, Baptist is 'NOT' "relatively modern coming from sectarian divisions that go back only to the 18th and 19th centuries, and really derive from a revived need to "keep the flock" due to the proliferation of sectarian splits over time". There have been Baptists, or people that adhered to the idea that you get baptized after you accept Christ as your Savior, since about 300.

 

The question, "How the hell does Evolution disturb religious beliefs" has quite a few answers, in my opinion. However, from your post, inside the sun, I'm not sure what you really want anwered. The idea of the human race evolving from some primordial soup goes against what is written in the Bible. That is how it disturbs religious beliefs. Regardless of how silly you might think we are, there are millions of people that take the Bible literally. Yes, we're used to being called deluded, and even crazy. But you asked how it disturbs 'religious beliefs', and that's one of the ways. To people that believe in a literal creation, and a literal God, evolution does not fit with what they have accepted as true.

 

They are people like us, with opinions and beliefs, yet, the difference is, they try to force them on others, and have killed over them, and well, i guess other people do that too, can't just pick on them, but they make selves targests, i dunno.

How often do you have those ideas 'forced' on you? And how does my belief in God and a literal Creation make me a target for you, or anyone else, just because it is MY PERSONAL BELIEF? I haven't asked you to become a Christian, and I haven't spent the last year telling you that you are going to burn in eternal hellfire. I AM a person, and I DO have opinions and beliefs, yet I DON'T try to force them on others. Please be careful HOW you generalize, especially in this very strange science forum that has a very active Christian Fundamentalist as an Administrator. Thanks! :)

[Tormod]

Basically their whole group is simply close-minded.

 

...

 

Believe what you want and keep an open mind.

 

Uhm...let me get this straight: anti-evolutionists are close-minded because they believe something? Faith is not prohibited around here, you know.

 

I have no problems with people being ID-ers. However, when they DO become close-minded they are like all other closed-minded folks: they are not willing to learn or hear anything else.

 

Like Louis Armstrong said, "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them".

[IrishEyes]

Like Louis Armstrong said, "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them".

 

Which also happens to be our motto around here, if I'm not mistaken... LOVE IT on the sweatshirts, btw.

[Queso]

Ironic, he was just singing on my playlist.

[IrishEyes]

"What a Wonderful World"?

[Buffy]

Irish: First, I'll apologize for my tone, and I actually try to keep myself in check, but sometimes the more strident views expressed by many religions are a little scary to me and sometimes I slip. I've spend a lot of time studying religion, read some of the Left Behind books, and grew up with a Catholic friend who always used to yell "you're a *nothing*!" when she got mad at me because I didn't go to church (more specifically Catholic church) every Sunday, so like many, I've been burned by the stridency. I do count myself as a religious person, and some of my very closest friends are Baptists and Evangelicals (yes, there are many right here in western California!).

 

Secondly, I'll agree with you on the "forced" point: none of my friends do anything to try to convert me or change my religious views and I think thats the most common position by far even in the fundamentalist sects. To "inside the sun": be careful about what you get offended by, and how you react to it.

 

I will quibble a bit on one point: I definitely misspoke in my post, and although I used the term "Baptist" which definitely has been around since John The Baptist (!), what I meant to refer to was the concept of "Biblical Inerrancy" in its sense currently used by Christian Fundamentalist faiths, which is a relatively recent concept. The exact composition of the bible--which books and so forth--was in heavy flux for the first thousand years of the Christian church, and of course the Catholic church kept it in latin until King James (freed of ties to the Vatican) translated it into the vernacular. Up to that point and well beyond as well, there was much involvement by both the Catholic church in issuing edicts by church leaders in how to interpret all sorts of things--with the Protestants after the reformation making their own contributions to both interpretation and actual composition of the Bible. The reason Galileo got in trouble with the Catholic church was not based on any conflict with what it says in the bible, but was based on the fact that the Vatican had deemed the Ptolemaic system to be "correct," and since they could not be seen as being wrong about anything, they had to fry him. Biblical Inerrancy however has come to mean both strict interpretation of the Bible because it is the literal word of God, and the rejection of the "edicts" that have been put out by the religious authorities--something that started with Martin Luther, but did not become fully formed in its present sense until two or three hundred years ago. It should be noted that the term Biblical Inerrancy is defined slightly differently by different groups, and what I've just described has lots of room for modification, based on the exact church you're talking about.

 

Whoo, a bit off topic, but relevant to an understanding of the issue of the conflict between some religions and Evolution theory.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

Uhm...let me get this straight: anti-evolutionists are close-minded because they believe something? Faith is not prohibited around here, you know.

 

That is not necessarily negative, but to simply claim that something is so just because you believe it and that alternatives are not possible is close-minded. Faith is not a bad thing, it is the very meaning of life for many. Is is just that though, faith.

 

There are many for example that absolutely think we were created, no ifs, ands or buts. That is their faith even if it is close-minded. There are also those that claim there is no God, the atheists, and they believe we were not created, no ifs, ands or buts. That is their faith and it is just as close-minded as the absolute belief of creation. Neither side can prove their belief one way or the other, it is simply their faith. Then there are those which accept that either side could be right and that too is a kind of faith, but it is an open-minded faith that does not exclude that which cannot be proven or disproven.

 

FWIW, I do not mean to offend anyone with this. It is simply the truth as I see it.

[IrishEyes]

Irish: First, I'll apologize for my tone, and I actually try to keep myself in check, but sometimes the more strident views expressed by many religions are a little scary to me and sometimes I slip.

Apology accepted.

And as to the rest of your post, I basically agree with you. I am also scared of what is expressed by many religions. However, in order to censor them, or tell anyone that their views are incorrect, that would require the same for everyone. Personally, though I do not agree with a lot of things that are held to be true in some "Christian" religions, I fully accept their right to their own opinions and their own interpretations of the Bible, as literal or not, as long as they do not expect me to adhere to their views.

 

Yes, I agree about the Biblical Inerrancy part, although I have a different take on it. However, as it has nothing to do with this topic and is much more suited to a discussion on theology, I will keep it to myself for now.

 

I just get very tired of being labeled an extremist, especially when the views that I hold were considered very standard less than one hundred years ago, and the views that are now 'normal' were extreme not too long ago. I think it's dangerous to create those labels, and espcailly disturbing when people say them without understanding what they are saying. Close-minded? Me? Most people would laugh at that! Fundamentalist though I may be, I am one of the more open-minded people at this site. However, there is a difference between having an open mind, and letting things fall right out of your head onto your keyboard. Discretion is the better part of valor, right?

[Buffy]

I just get very tired of being labeled an extremist, especially when the views that I hold were considered very standard less than one hundred years ago, and the views that are now 'normal' were extreme not too long ago. I think it's dangerous to create those labels, and espcailly disturbing when people say them without understanding what they are saying. Close-minded? Me? Most people would laugh at that! Fundamentalist though I may be, I am one of the more open-minded people at this site. However, there is a difference between having an open mind, and letting things fall right out of your head onto your keyboard. Discretion is the better part of valor, right?

Amen!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Tormod]

That is not necessarily negative, but to simply claim that something is so just because you believe it and that alternatives are not possible is close-minded.

 

Good. I was hoping we were on the same level here.

 

There are also those that claim there is no God, the atheists, and they believe we were not created, no ifs, ands or buts. That is their faith and it is just as close-minded as the absolute belief of creation.

 

Uhm...we're not going down the "atheism is a faith" route again. Been there, done that, so many times now. Sorry. I am an atheist, and I do not believe in creation, nor any god or intelligent designer. Do you consider me close minded?

[Stargazer]

If you want a religion that does not go against science, then you must be prepared to change that religion to fit the scientific worldview which can change and adapt at any time.

[Stargazer]

I'm going to try to ignore the obvious insults and just answer what was, I think, the original question. I am also going to ask that you guys watch how you label people. I can't remember the last time I called anyone around here a "godless humanist",

Ok. I suppose the godless humanists gladly call themselves that, anyway. It's not really an insult, you see :-)

 

or told anyone that they'd "for sure be condemned to eternal damnation on Judgement day",

I wouldn't be very offended by that, because I know it's a baseless assertion, and so certainly I'm not the one that comes in bad light.

 

The question, "How the hell does Evolution disturb religious beliefs" has quite a few answers, in my opinion. However, from your post, inside the sun, I'm not sure what you really want anwered. The idea of the human race evolving from some primordial soup goes against what is written in the Bible. That is how it disturbs religious beliefs.

It's a good thing that it doesn't go against what is found in the real world, then.

 

Regardless of how silly you might think we are, there are millions of people that take the Bible literally. Yes, we're used to being called deluded, and even crazy. But you asked how it disturbs 'religious beliefs', and that's one of the ways. To people that believe in a literal creation, and a literal God, evolution does not fit with what they have accepted as true.

And it is important to know that biblical creation has absolutely no support. Oh right, reminds me of another thread I'm going to look up now... Maybe later then. I was hoping for evidence that showed the Bible correct, and completely overturned real scientific theories.

[bumab]

If you want a religion that does not go against science, then you must be prepared to change that religion to fit the scientific worldview which can change and adapt at any time.

 

Not really, you need a religion that exists seperate from science. Apples and oranges type thing. If fact, the Bible says God should be revealed through creation- implying we should study it. Fear of what we are going to find is a weakness in any religion, I think. For example, a religion where God could have creating the universe through evolution, where creation exists apart from the Divine. I think a self-sustaining and self-perpetuating world is consistent with most religions, once the spectre of literalist interpritations of the truth is removed from Biblical readings. Things can be true and not literally true at the same time.

[Stargazer]

Not really, you need a religion that exists seperate from science. Apples and oranges type thing. If fact, the Bible says God should be revealed through creation- implying we should study it. Fear of what we are going to find is a weakness in any religion, I think. For example, a religion where God could have creating the universe through evolution, where creation exists apart from the Divine. I think a self-sustaining and self-perpetuating world is consistent with most religions, once the spectre of literalist interpritations of the truth is removed from Biblical readings. Things can be true and not literally true at the same time.

But the concept of religion, that is baseless blind faith, superfluous entities etc. do clash with science. Not many can accept this, for some reason, yet they think that they can pick and choose among the theories so that it fits their made-up worldview. Strange to say the least. "General relativity is ok... germ theory is ok... evolution, nope, gotta go..."

 

And yes, if you don't want your religion to clash too much with the scientific worldview, then you have to change it when our observations give us more data.