evolution and religion

[hermanntrude]

I had a discussion with a christian who was using painting as a tool for preaching in canterbury town centre today, and he used the "evolution can't be explained by science so God must have done it" argument

It just occurred to me that it's interesting that evolution is used by BOTH sides of the "God or no God" debate.

discuss

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Evolution is really quite remarkable and does not REQUIRE god. I do not see that evolution says that there is no god. To believe something as silly as god has nothing to do with science, it is about believing things that cannot be proven, much like ghosts. If you don't believe in them or him or it you cannot see it.

I feel sad for those that believe that there is a god AND believe in evolution. In that case, god's abilities are such that constant corrective action need be taken to keep it all together and life must be destroyed and rebuilt again and again. God is either a psychopath or totally inept.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It just occurred to me that it's interesting that evolution is used by BOTH sides of the "God or no God" debate.

You just heard another version of the old Argument from Ignorance, or perhaps what Richard Dawkins calls the Argument from Personal Incredulity. The preacher is entirely wrong.

The extremists on the "God" side try to deny evolution because it has no need for a deity to be any part of its explanations, thus they perceive it as contributing to atheism, immorality, and the general decline of civilization. Extremists on the "no God" side may point to evolution as another example of why the god hypothesis is unnecessary. Extremists generally aren't worth talking to. You can't learn anything from them, though sometimes there's a certain amount of fun to be had in knocking them down. Unfortunately, they never seem to perceive how thoroughly they've been knocked down.

The fact, however, is that evolution has nothing to say about "God or no God," and trying to bring it into the debate on either side inevitably involves distortion and misunderstanding of it, as well as numerous other examples of ill-informed thinking. Like the preacher you heard. If he actually said what you quoted there*, in any form, his ignorance is vast and his comprehension tiny.

*I'm not doubting that he did, only suggesting those might not have been his exact words.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: evolution and religio

Just dont mention Prof. Glick and the 3rd law of thermo-dynamics...cus I hear this arguement can go on for months!!!....really!!

 

[gc]

I had a discussion with a christian who was using painting as a tool for preaching in canterbury town centre today, and he used the "evolution can't be explained by science so God must have done it" argument

"Science can't explain it, so God must have done it" or more precisely "Science can't explain the process of evolution, therefore the process of evolution does not exist (and hence God did it)" is not a very good argument against evolution. Science can't really explain what causes gravity, that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't have a cause or that it doesn't exist, it's just that we don't know what it is.

It just occurred to me that it's interesting that evolution is used by BOTH sides of the "God or no God" debate.

discuss

It depends on what is meant by the term "evolution". If we are talking about general evolution (one species evolving into another), that is not in contradiction with the bible (I don't think...I could be wrong). However, when talking about evolution, it is usually assumed that the theory of evolution means humans evolved from other species, which definately contradicts the bible and therefore is not compatible with Christianity.

 

[gc]

RE: evolution and religio

Actually, come to think of it, the same argument can be made against Christianity. Science can not explain the process of how God made humans (& other organisms) therefore it couldn't have happened.

 

[s_lone]

The problem with this debate is that there is no clear description of what "God" is suppose to be. It's practically impossible to have a productive dialogue between believers and non-believers if the idea of "God" isn't clearly defined. The concept of "God" is largely subjective to everyone and there is no clear objective description.

From my point of view, God is everything, simply. God is all. With that description, it's kinda hard to say God does not exist. But with another description it can be TOTALLY different.

 

[gc]

Re: RE: evolution and religion

The problem with this debate is that there is no clear description of what "God" is suppose to be. It's practically impossible to have a productive dialogue between believers and non-believers if the idea of "God" isn't clearly defined. The concept of "God" is largely subjective to everyone and there is no clear objective description.

From my point of view, God is everything, simply. God is all. With that description, it's kinda hard to say God does not exist. But with another description it can be TOTALLY different.

Well that's true...but for the purpose of this discussion, which is about Christianity (according to the original post), I think it's safe to assume that God is an omnipotent being, sitting in heaven, that physically resembles a human (ie the stereotypical view of a Christian God), as described in the bible.

 

[s_lone]

Re: RE: evolution and religion

Well that's true...but for the purpose of this discussion, which is about Christianity (according to the original post), I think it's safe to assume that God is an omnipotent being, sitting in heaven, that physically resembles a human (ie the stereotypical view of a Christian God), as described in the bible.

Well that's a problem right there... The image you present is still quite very present in our world but it remains a stereotype. Personal conceptions of God can still vary greatly from christian to christian. Take Teilhard de Chardin for example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

I don't think his description of God would be as simple-minded as the one you present. But for the sake of the thread, we can indeed agree on the stereotypical Christian God.

 

[feronia]

God is energy and therefore God IS everything. Science can explain it because science can explain energy.

 

[gc]

God is energy and therefore God IS everything. Science can explain it because science can explain energy.

Well the problem with that is it contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible. God created man in His image, took 6 days to do so etc... If you want to use a non-literal definition then science/evolution are not at odds with religion, if you are using the literal interpretation of the bible, then there is a contradiction.

BTW, I don't think Science can explain where energy came from, and therefore can't explain where God came from.

 

[humanbeing]

RE: evolution and religio

The problem with this debate is that there is no clear description of what "God" is suppose to be. It's practically impossible to have a productive dialogue between believers and non-believers if the idea of "God" isn't clearly defined. The concept of "God" is largely subjective to everyone and there is no clear objective description.

From my point of view, God is everything, simply. God is all. With that description, it's kinda hard to say God does not exist. But with another description it can be TOTALLY different.

How well must one define god? For me, standard dictionary definitions are sufficient. And so I have an idea about what god is supposed to be based on that and also other things that I've heard (from the bible or what not)... still don't believe it for a moment, mind you.

If you believe god is just everything all around us, it sounds like you just give a different meaning to the word 'god' than others might, which is okay. Just, you might not want to use the word 'god' when asked to describe your surroundings, because it is sure to lead to confusion.

Anyhow, there is actually reason to believe in an origin of life billions of years ago, rather than in an origin of life several thousand years ago (or whenever it was that god decided to make the earth). To that extent, evolution is nice to have in mind when discussing the myriad of different lifeforms now present on earth compared to the amount around the time of the origin of life.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If you want to use a non-literal definition then science/evolution are not at odds with religion...

There's no way in which science is not at odds with religion that I can see. Stephen Jay Gould made a heroic effort to draw a line between them, calling them "non-overlapping magisteria," and while I have the utmost respect for Gould as a thinker and essayist, I think he got that one wrong. You can't have it both ways. If there is an incorporeal supernatural being with some interest in us and able to affect us (the broadest possible definition of god I can think of at the moment), then it must interact with and be part of the physical universe in some way. Even if it's not running things on a moment by moment basis as the fundamentalists claim, it must at least have interacted to the extent of creating the physics and mathematics we observe all around us. That makes the claim that god exists an empirical statement about the nature of the cosmos, and therefore legitimately within the purview of scientific investigation. Simply put, a cosmos with a god in it ought to be fundamentally different from one without.

Yet as far as we can tell, there's no evidence that points incontrovertibly to there being a god in this one. We have satisfactory naturalistic explanations--evolution is one of them--for everything we think we understand about the cosmos we inhabit, and at no point has it been necessary to assume there's a god behind any of it. For the things we don't understand, postulating a god as the explanation really explains nothing, and the history of the scientific endeavor shows that clearly. The more we understand about something, the more any possible role for a supernatural being gets pushed back.

In fact you can understand much of human history over the last 400 years as religion retreating from making empirical statements about the cosmos in the face of a scientific revolution that's proven many of those statements to be wrong. And not just a little bit wrong, but egregiously, hugely, wrong. Faced with such a consistent trend, I don't see how anyone can avoid the conclusion that the anthropomorphic god postulated by the great monotheisms most likely doesn't exist.

That doesn't preclude the possibility that some form of being we would call a god might exist. But if there *is* one (and why would there be only one? No other being we've ever encountered consists of only one example), it's nothing like anybody's ever imagined.

 

[gc]

If there is an incorporeal supernatural being with some interest in us and able to affect us (the broadest possible definition of god I can think of at the moment), then it must interact with and be part of the physical universe in some way. Even if it's not running things on a moment by moment basis as the fundamentalists claim, it must at least have interacted to the extent of creating the physics and mathematics we observe all around us.

I agree with your post. But I was talking about a much broader definition of God, like "God is Energy" or Spinoza's God, where God is not a being but a thing. In that case I don't think they are at odds, but then again if all you say is God is Energy, all you're really doing is giving a different name (God) to a known phenomenon (Energy) so is that really considered religion? I guess not.

Though I don't think that the idea of a personal God, whatever the definition, is necessarily at odds with evolution, specifically.

 

[Vereya]

I feel sad for those that believe that there is a god AND believe in evolution. In that case, god's abilities are such that constant corrective action need be taken to keep it all together and life must be destroyed and rebuilt again and again. God is either a psychopath or totally inept.

Somehow, when we discuss God, we take it for granted that humans and their development is a matter of primary importance to him. Now, imagine for a moment that you are a great writer, like Tolstoy or Galsworthy or Dickens. You have the greatest talent, the greatest abilities. You are universally known as the greatest writer of your time. And now tell me, would you care to write short articles for tabloid newspapers? I don't think so. Wasting your time, that could've been spent in a more rewarding and creative way, and getting too little profit from it. It is just not worth it.
And now imagine that you are a being, that can create planets and galaxies, and that has the power to create life. Would you care to spend your time, controlling and organizing what happens on just one planet of the multitude of planets that you have created? I don't think so, too. The God that is the creative power gives you life and gives you intelligence. And he creates certain conditions in the environment he puts you into. And the rest - that is adapting yourself to the environment, so as to interact with it in the best possible way - is up to you. Hence the evolution.

 

[hermanntrude]

Re: RE: evolution and religio

Actually, come to think of it, the same argument can be made against Christianity. Science can not explain the process of how God made humans (& other organisms) therefore it couldn't have happened.

good. i'm glad to see someone realise i did say people quote it both ways.

personally i dont see that belief in God (admittedly not via direct interpretation of the Bible) and beleif in evolution (macroevolution, i think any half-rational person believes in microevolution) are mutually exclusive.

I feel sad for those that believe that there is a god AND believe in evolution. In that case, god's abilities are such that constant corrective action need be taken to keep it all together and life must be destroyed and rebuilt again and again. God is either a psychopath or totally inept.

I think there is another option. I don't say this is true as i am a total fence-sitter. I havent even made my mind up whether i ever will make my mind up... i am reluctant to say i am even agnostic.

my "other option" is as follows

God, in His wisdon, or just for a laugh, decided He wanted to make humans and maybe further steps on the scale as well, and thought of the most economical way to do this. He created something called a Universe, with the specifics already built in. He decided that there should be atoms, protons neutrons, electrons and weirder subatomic particles, in order that the whole thing should run along smoothly without too much maintainence. He knew at that stage that things would develop into the diversity we see today via what the humans call science and what He calls built in adaptability.

Just one possibility.

there are many more, I don't claim to be rewriting genesis, just throwing theories about

 

[tamarin]

And the whole point of faith is an afterlife. A reward for commitment on earth. We can argue evolution 'til the dinosaurs come home, but religious faith has one essential tenet: to reward the good and purposeful life.
If there's no heaven there's no sense in any other view of the divine.

 

[hermanntrude]

RE: evolution and religio

the problem with the afterlife is it's unprovable. whereas it may just be possible one day to prove whether or not something like evolution, or the massive coincidence that the universe is capable of containing life at all, was the result of a creator's hand. which itself would show that an afterlife was highly probable.

the thing that gets me about God, is why does he have to be so elusive? If it's belief he wants then burning bushes are the way to go, not leaps of faith.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

God keeps changing. At one point he was a bearded dude occasionally getting PO 'd and smiting us. He is now all energy, everything. He is apparently that which we don't have an explanation for. As we understand more he will retreat more and more until his need disapears totally. In any case he doesn't seem overly concerned with the day to day workings of the universe and so why should we think he cares about evolution (or us for that matter). Science will eventually explain everything that at one time only god could.

 

[feronia]

God is energy and therefore God IS everything. Science can explain it because science can explain energy.

Well the problem with that is it contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible. God created man in His image, took 6 days to do so etc... If you want to use a non-literal definition then science/evolution are not at odds with religion, if you are using the literal interpretation of the bible, then there is a contradiction.

BTW, I don't think Science can explain where energy came from, and therefore can't explain where God came from.

Since I don't believe in the bible or its stories I don't see a contradiction. As for science, it changes definitions as quickly as revelations changes sides.