inside the sun Posted February 17, 2005 Author Report Posted February 17, 2005 Honesty required. I got on after there were 50 replies to this, i only read about 1 or 2 pages. I didn't directly ask a question, i think i just posted my opinions, with a little bit of questions here and there, but if they were, they weren't direct. I thank those of you who all responded. We are all very opinionated people here as i can see, and emotions can drive us, and as you watch examples from buffy and irish eyes first posts to their later ones, you are first driven by an emotion, maybe anger, annoyance, from the past, or present, or whatever. NO i am not saying i am better than you, WE ARE ALL HUMAN. And i was driven by emotions too, maybe i should have said that first before pointing out who else was driven by emotions because it might set off more of that, um, testrone? wrong word. Yeah, ill admit i have problems with relgion, but im working my hardest, to not judge books by their cover, not be stereotypical. It's just hard, when ABORTION is still a damn issue, when we are taking away CHOICES..because of religion. I am SPIRITUAL, but not religious. I don't study relgion, nor know much, so i don't have the right to talk bad about it, but i can say this, the issues i discuss, they feel wrong. For them to NOT be allowed to TEACH evolution, just feels wrong, for people not able to have the RIGHT/CHOICE to get an abortion, that feels wrong too. That is what im talking about, don't put me down with how little i know about religion and how much more you know, this isnt what this is about. And if my mind is closed in any way, which i dont think it is, and maybe sometimes is, but i open it up asap, attacking me, or thinking im attacking you, isn't going to open this. Will anyone read this, probably not, but oh well. Guten Nacht, Good night
TeleMad Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 RiverRat: I also remember a few years ago a book lecture on public TV about string theory. I think it may have been Green explaining the theory in relationship to the ‘elegant universe’. After his book lecture, he fielded questions and at the very end an attendee asked if what he sees in his research and in his data is ‘too elegant’ to be truly random and if everything may be by design. I do not remember his exact words but I do recall that his brief answer leaned more towards ID. He even chuckled and jokingly said something like “imagine that …” as if he could not believe what he just said. That's odd. Because I saw Brian Greene on C-Span or Book TV, I think, giving a lecture about his 'Elegant Universe' book and at the end when he fielded questions, he was indeed asked about whether fine tuning's pointed towards there being more than nature ... but he dismissed it. I read a few years ago that the probability of our universe even existing was … one chance out of 10 to the power of ten to the one hundred and twenty-fourth power. We need to see the calculation and the source. Otherwise, it's just hearsay. RiverRat: Now… I’m not sure how one could calculate this number and I’m not sure if it is reasonable accurate … but even if it is in the ballpark … "...and oh what a big if!..." (Charles Darwin) RiverRat: ... this probability can not even be comprehended. I remember footnotes stating that an emanate cosmologist indicated that this is a powerful sign of ID directly from science. Who was the cosmologist? What exactly did s/he say and where can we read his/her actual words?
RiverRat Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 That's odd. Because I saw Brian Greene on C-Span or Book TV, I think, giving a lecture about his 'Elegant Universe' book and at the end when he fielded questions, he was indeed asked about whether fine tuning's pointed towards there being more than nature ... but he dismissed it. In terms of if what we viewed on CSpan was in fact the same program … then it appears that we both viewed an ambiguous reply with our own presuppositions. We need to see the calculation and the source. Otherwise, it's just hearsay. After some digging … I located this info… Donald Page's estimation is to be found in L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell, "God and Modern Science: New Life for the Teleological Argument"' International Philosophical Quarterly 27 (1987): 416. In fact, as Page later explained that, Betty and Cordell get the number too low, misinterpreting 1010(124) to mean (1010)124, when in fact Page calculated 10(10(124)), an absolute ‘astronomical’ probability. Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, has called this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science. This can be located in … "The Astronomer and God," in The Intellectuals Speak Out About God) … I think this was published in the eighties. I will indeed appeal to authority in respect to the above calculations on the probability of our universe even existing. If you would like to have a crack at refuting this figure with your own research, then ‘have at it’. "...and oh what a big if!..." (Charles Darwin) I suppose if one would view the existance of our universe in simplistic terms ... the probabilty could be 50% (either it will exist or it will not)
jp3089 Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 Hi everyone. My comments only pertain to the original question. The stereotypical person who conflicts religion with evolution is usually (emphasis on usually, but not always) a Bible-believing, right-wing, conservative Christian who has often grown up viewing evolution as the plague of the last couple centuries. Much of that animosity towards evolution has been passed down for years from one generation to the next within Christian circles. To evolutionists credit, many Christians attack evolution without really understanding what they're attacking. I'm sorry if anyone has ever been offended in that way. There are a few theological and Biblical points that do put some "religious" people at odds with evolution. I'm not giving these as arguments for or against anything. I'm merely stating why some people have a problem with evolution. Some of these are Biblical, some are theological, and some are just how folks feel. 1. I think for many Christians who have grown up with the belief that God created them directly, the idea that they weren't hand-made by God is hard to swallow. For them, being hand-crafted by God makes them feel special, unique. To be told that that isn't true, that they are the product of millions of years of evolutionary process is many times a hard pill to swallow. 2. For the conservative Christian who holds the Bible as the Word of God, they believe in a moral Right & Wrong. They believe that there is such a thing as sin. The theory of evolution is at odds with this. I'm pretty sure that naturalistic evolution rules out an objective morality (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's true, then the religious person has a hard time with the idea that our laws and standards of right & wrong are merely utilitarian. They exist only to keep peace and order within our societies. That idea smacks right up against some religious worldviews. 3. Many religious people don't like evolution because their scriptures don't say that's how it happened. Regardless of what we think, many people cling to what they know (in the sense that they cling to what is familiar). Evolution is just plain "different" from how they think life came about. If I've learned one thing in my life, it's that many people don't like "change" or "different". For many religious people (but not all), "if it ain't in the Bible, it didn't happen!" 4. As I said above, some of the animosity of religious people towards evolution is merely views that have been passed down from generation to generation. Sad, but some people dislike stuff just because they were told to dislike it. 5. Theologically and Biblically, Christians believe that God created man "in His image". For them, even saying that God created an organism and then let it evolve on its own is a horrible thing. I hope these answer the original question somewhat. There are more reasons, but I thought this might be a good start. Again, these are NOT arguments for or against ANYTHING. They're merely reasons why some people have a conflict with evolution from a religious standpoint. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// As a Christian, I do need to reply to a few other things written in the very first post of this thread. Let me start of with an apology. Christians are NOT supposed to impose our beliefs on anyone. If that's ever happened to anyone, I apologize. That's wrong, and it goes against the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. If a Christian has ever done that to you, they were in the wrong and I'm sorry for that. On the same note, not all Christians are like that. I would even hesitantly say that most Christians aren't like that. And as far as killing for Christianity... Again, those Christians were dead wrong. That's not true Christianity. They weren't following the teachings of Jesus. That's why separation of church & state is such a good thing... If you read the Bible, Jesus didn't force anyone to follow him or his teachings. Christians who try to do that misuse their religion. Again, my apologies to anyone who has had a bad experience with a Christian like that. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Maybe this is a better discussion for the philosophy section. Anyway, this is just an answer to the original question. It's not an argument or anything like that. Let me know if you guys have any questions or comments on what I've written. -jp
Tormod Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 I was only pointing out that this is silly and pointless because there are schools that will go to this extreme. We're on the same wavelength, then. I misread your post. Hm...that never happened to me before. :(
RiverRat Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 That's odd. Because I saw Brian Greene on C-Span or Book TV, I think, giving a lecture about his 'Elegant Universe' book and at the end when he fielded questions, he was indeed asked about whether fine tuning's pointed towards there being more than nature ... but he dismissed it. From National Geographic News …. Oct 18, 2004 Brian Greene believes we are taking giant strides toward understanding the deepest laws of the universe. That, he says, has strengthened his belief in the underlying harmony and order of the cosmos. "The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me." Now … I would contest the fact that he ‘dismisses’ ID
lindagarrette Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 Hi everyone. My comments only pertain to the original question. The stereotypical person who conflicts religion with evolution is usually (emphasis on usually, but not always) a Bible-believing, right-wing, conservative Christian who has often grown up viewing evolution as the plague of the last couple centuries. Much of that animosity towards evolution has been passed down for years from one generation to the next within Christian circles. It's not an argument or anything like that. Let me know if you guys have any questions or comments on what I've written. -jpJP you have some good points. But remember, the creation story. Adam and Eve and original sin. is essential to Christianity. Otherwise there would be no resurection and salvation. Evolution instantly destroys the foundation.
bumab Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 But remember, the creation story. Adam and Eve and original sin. is essential to Christianity. Otherwise there would be no resurection and salvation. Evolution instantly destroys the foundation. I disagree. It destroys the foundations only if those foundations are a LITERAL interpritation of Genisis. Most modern readings of Genisis do not go for the literal readings. In fact, Genisis, as written by the Hebrews, was written as an alagorical story and was never meant by them to be taken literally. Many (probably most) Biblical scholars see no need to take it as a literal interpritation of events. It can be true in a story telling sense, no true in a historical sense, and still be valuable.
jp3089 Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 JP you have some good points. But remember, the creation story. Adam and Eve and original sin. is essential to Christianity. Otherwise there would be no resurection and salvation. Evolution instantly destroys the foundation. I hear what you're saying. There are some people who try to mesh the two, though... What are your thoughts on that? -jp
jp3089 Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 I disagree. It destroys the foundations only if those foundations are a LITERAL interpritation of Genisis. Most modern readings of Genisis do not go for the literal readings. In fact, Genisis, as written by the Hebrews, was written as an alagorical story and was never meant by them to be taken literally. Many (probably most) Biblical scholars see no need to take it as a literal interpritation of events. It can be true in a story telling sense, no true in a historical sense, and still be valuable. I agree that all of Genesis isn't literal. The part about sin is taken literally by the vast majority of Biblical scholars, but the 7-day creation story is taken quite non-literally within the Christian community. However, even Genesis taken in a non-literal sense still clashes strongly with evolution for the reasons of objective morality and sin. Besides, many passages of the Bible mingle things that must be taken literally to those that cannot be taken literally. (And before someone accuses me of taking whichever ones literally that I want to, I want to say that there are ways of deciding what is to be taken literally and what is not) The entire focus of the Bible is fallennes, redemption, and restoration. Evolution undermines these, even when all of Genesis isn't taken literally. -jp
bumab Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 The entire focus of the Bible is fallennes, redemption, and restoration. Evolution undermines these, even when all of Genesis isn't taken literally. That's a good way to put it. I think the morality of the Bible is certainly one of the tenents you couldn't throw out or not take literally. And you captured the thematic element beautifully (although there's more of course :( )! As for evolution undermining it, I don't agree. Evolution is a process by which life evolves, through which life most likely emerged from non-life, etc etc. To extend that into the realm of morality is stepping beyond it's scientific bounds. It does imply that meaning, morals, free will, etc are illusions, but only if you take evolution at more then face value. It's important to now extend yourself to far. I'm not downplaying the implications, only trying to keep them in perspective.
Fishteacher73 Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 One issue is that there seems to be a descrepenecy of when some thing should be interpreted as litereal and when it should be allegorical. It seems to me the Bible should be interpreted as either one or the other. To say that here we believe the litteral meaning of the passage, but over here its allegorical seems contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Perhaps if you were reading the original texts (as they came about over many years by many different authors) one could make that argument, but the most currently accepted English version of the Bible is the King James, which is supposed to the work of the devine hand through the scribes and the litteral translation from God.
bumab Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 It seems to me the Bible should be interpreted as either one or the other. To say that here we believe the litteral meaning of the passage, but over here its allegorical seems contradictory. But it's a collection of writings, not a single piece. Perhaps if you were reading the original texts (as they came about over many years by many different authors) one could make that argument, but the most currently accepted English version of the Bible is the King James, which is supposed to the work of the devine hand through the scribes and the litteral translation from God. Traditionally, but not neccessarily true. Even if you allow for a literal translation, that doesn't mean the story itself must be taken literally. I'm not trying to be argumentative, believe me. I just get it from both sides, as it were.
jp3089 Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 That's a good way to put it. I think the morality of the Bible is certainly one of the tenents you couldn't throw out or not take literally. And you captured the thematic element beautifully (although there's more of course :( )! As for evolution undermining it, I don't agree. Evolution is a process by which life evolves, through which life most likely emerged from non-life, etc etc. To extend that into the realm of morality is stepping beyond it's scientific bounds. It does imply that meaning, morals, free will, etc are illusions, but only if you take evolution at more then face value. It's important to now extend yourself to far. I'm not downplaying the implications, only trying to keep them in perspective. Good words. I can see where you're coming from, but how would we get objective morality from a completely naturalistic process? My point is that within the evolutionary worldview, "morality" is merely utilitarian rules that we have constructed by evolving to make our societies function and stay orderly and not die out. Evolution doesn't need to step beyond its bounds into morality, because by definition it has no bounds. I feel that naturalistic evolution is all-encompassing, and is even able to explain morality as utilitarian rules. Let me know what you think. -jp
jp3089 Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 One issue is that there seems to be a descrepenecy of when some thing should be interpreted as litereal and when it should be allegorical. It seems to me the Bible should be interpreted as either one or the other. To say that here we believe the litteral meaning of the passage, but over here its allegorical seems contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it too.You can't say that the Bible can't use allegorical and literal passages just because you think it should be all one or the other. That's like me telling a painter that he can't make a painting that is part reality and part imagination because "he can't have is cake and eat it too". It just doesn't work that way. Besides, it's not contradictory at all. It's just two different types of writing in one book. Perhaps if you were reading the original texts (as they came about over many years by many different authors) one could make that argument, but the most currently accepted English version of the Bible is the King James, which is supposed to the work of the devine hand through the scribes and the litteral translation from God. The King James isn't the most currently accepted version of the Bible. Almost no one uses that version any more. The NIV (New Internation Version) is now the most accepted. There are many numbers of manuscripts dated far before the King James was translated that show us that the translations were correct, and even allows us to retranslate to modern English directly from the ancient Greek and Hebraic manuscripts. -jp
Fishteacher73 Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 I'm not speaking about translation, I'm speaking of interpretation. You would decide that one of Warhol's portraits suddenly was anything more than pop art, even if you happened to prefer Jagger over Monroe... To say you can decide whether it is allegorical in parts and literal in others pretty much makes it nothing more that a work of fiction that you can decipher as you will. I don't like that part about thou shall not kill, so I'll look at it as a fable, but over here it says the world was fooded, and darn it it was...The bible said so. For it to any sort of reliable reference it needs to be exanmine in either light, allegory are litteral depiction of events, not pick and choose what is convenient to your POV they seem pretty much mutually exclusive POV's when looking at a single item.
IrishEyes Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 To say you can decide whether it is allegorical in parts and literal in others pretty much makes it nothing more that a work of fiction that you can decipher as you will. I agree with this, Fish. Being able to pick and choose, or what I generally call Buffet-Style Christianity, is one of the reasons that Christianity (and many other religions) have problems. However, I see that as the product of men. I think it is quite human to want to pick and choose, and that's where so many of the different interpretations and translations of the Bible come in, and where we get so many denominations/sects/splints. I have a hard time with most religions for exactly this reason. I agree that the Bible should be looked at as a whole, as that is it's claim. It isn't sold as separate books, but as one finished product. To say that some are true, some are literal, some are stories, some are illustrations, some are just wrong... well, I think that's reaching a bit. I think that you either have to accept that it is what it claims to be, or that it's not. I don't see a whole lot of middle ground on that issue. Also, I think that verses and passages should be taken in context, rather than pulled apart and used to defend a certain philosphy or idea. There are groups that base entire doctrines on single verses, or parts of verses, and defend different practices, such as hatred or bigotry, with words that- taken in the context that they were written- has nothing to do with their positions. Again, back to the topic, 'evolution interferes with religion' because in the Bible (and the Koran), "In the Beginning GOD created" does not leave room for an evolution-type origin of man. To say that both God created the world, AND man evolved from nothing (yes, I know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, I'm just simplifying here), goes against a literal interpretation of the Word of God. And that's just MHO.
Recommended Posts