Evolution vs. Creationism

[gloomy-optimist]

Fair enough I can agree with all that. It's good to see the different sides of things.

The only thing I would argue is how relation religion to science invariable becomes pantheism. I don't believe all religious phenomenon or past mysteries, in becoming explainable by science, make them so false that it completely writes off religion itself as incorrect. The supernatural and God are not exactly the same thing; one could argue that God is "supernatural," but not all "supernatural" occurrences are related to God.
I guess what I'm saying is that, while some people believe that because science can explain things we didn't understand in the past, that God Himself is therefore also something that we can simply write off as being non-existent. I do not believe they should so easily be equated.

My argument is that this conclusion is not exactly concrete, since, according to most religions, God(s) created the universe. If that is so, then it would follow that all physical and chemical laws were also created at that time, and thus all the "supernatural phenomenon" as well. They could still very easily be explainable by science, but they would still have been created to be the way they are.
If that was the case, science would not write off religion; it would simply explain the occurrences of the physical world as it was created (in the context of religion). That would not make it exactly pantheism; God and nature could still be separate entities (although there are many religions that do not separate the two).


And btw, I don't want you guys to think I'm some sort of pushy religious bigot; I'm really actually very tolerant. I just like to make my points on the issues, since I think it's kind of silly to either believe whole-heartedly without reason or write it off without consideration.
So don't think I'm trying to slap anyone with a bible or make you read all about Moses or anything :mD:

 

[Lurker]

I am tolerant of all beliefs and just like you I can respectfully disagree.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

Are you smarter than him?
And why don't you try that technique and make you own assumption afterwords. scared ?

Please don't try to bait me.

Please don't assume you know my religious beliefs.


My response to your previous post was not an attack on you personally or your religious beliefs but your choice of words in claiming anyone who doesn't believe in God is ignorant. That is flaming.

I am tolerant of all beliefs and just like you I can respectfully disagree.

This is all I ask for.

 

[Satya]

I guess what I'm saying is that, while some people believe that because science can explain things we didn't understand in the past, that God Himself is therefore also something that we can simply write off as being non-existent. I do not believe they should so easily be equated.

Science is tentative knowledge. It assumes Occam's razor.

Occam's razor: In the absence of any reasonable argument to believe anything supernatural exists or explains anything, and in the presence of some reasonable arguments to believe the natural world exists and explains everything, science should be accepted until disproven.

Since scientific knowledge is tentative, it is easily disproved with the discovery of new information or a better explaination of the available evidence. As there is no measurable, observable evidence of the supernatural, there is no reason beyond subjective faith, experience, or intuition, by which to accept the existence of the supernatural.

Science does not "write off" God because what was formally conceived of supernatural can now be described in natural terms, rather science, to begin with, cannot accept that to which there is no measurable, observable evidence to support.

 

[Dice]

Please don't try to bait me.

My response to your previous post was not an attack on you personally or your religious beliefs but your choice of words in claiming anyone who doesn't believe in God is ignorant. That is flaming.

Yes maybe so but I stick to it. Just an opinion in a conversation.
But even more so what infuriates me is to see those coming in God's name killing and forcing beliefs and soothing their minds with false hoods of "where doing God's work." They'll get theirs.

We must all remember that the submission to God must be done completely of free will.
That is what he wants.And I can't seem to do that yet

 

[Satya]

They'll get theirs.

Religious belief is a pursuit in subjective interpretation of religious scriptures. Since religion deals in terms of absolutes, conflicting subjective interpretations inevitably lead to conflict. How do you know that your subjective interpretation (or your church's subjective interpretation) is superior and the correct one whereas all the others are inferior and incorrect? What basis aside from your own subjective experiences, intuition, and faith do you have to support your position?

 

[Mannit]

I totally agree with you!

aw I'm glad

 

[Dice]

Religious belief is a pursuit in subjective interpretation of religious scriptures. Since religion deals in terms of absolutes, conflicting subjective interpretations inevitably lead to conflict. How do you know that your subjective interpretation (or your church's subjective interpretation) is superior and the correct one whereas all the others are inferior and incorrect? What basis aside from your own subjective experiences, intuition, and faith do you have to support your position?

hold on chum, I never said any religion was inferior to another, Jesus said I have many who are not of this flock. In fact I believe all major religions are connected. Which is extremely controversial in the Christian church. The interpretation of any thing can be challenged; text, historical so called fact, scientific data. So don't try an label me as a Salem Witch Trial Judge when all things we believe as fact are simply an interpretation of another; Darwinism to Christianity. All simply interpretations of what one sees, But who will we believe the intuition or the thinker ? This is an INFJ forum ?
:mpick:

 

[Satya]

All simply interpretations of what one sees, But who will we believe the intuition or the thinker ? This is an INFJ forum ?

The difference is what can be observed in science can be measured, whereas what can bee seen via intuition or faith cannot. Measurement is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, since it eliminates personal bias and distortion from emotion.

Whereas, I have no desire to undermine the spiritual and emotional significance of your religious beliefs, I will argue they have no objective basis in reality. One of the most questionable traits of religion is that it speaks in absolutes based on information that is tentative. In other words, religion declares itself the perfect explaination of the world based solely on information derived from subjectively interpreted scriptures. By contrast, science speaks tentatively based on information that is absolute. Science's explaination of the world is constantly subject to being disproven upon the discovery of new evidence or a better explaination, and it is derived from information that has been measured and thus will always yield the same result no matter how many times it is measured.

And as far as your argument for this being an "INFJ forum" you should probabaly know that INFJs who have developed their Tertiary thinking function are among the most developed of the type. INFJs who have not done so, are generally blind slaves to their Dominant intution function. :mpick:

 

[Dice]

well

And as far as your argument for this being an "INFJ forum" you should probabaly know that INFJs who have developed their Tertiary thinking function are among the most developed of the type. INFJs who have not done so, are generally blind slaves to their Dominant intution function. :mpick:

Perhaps those INFJ's have who have developed their so called Tertiary thinking have tuned out their intuition voice and have purely given into extroverted thinking of even others; because they cannot interpret clearly their intuition. Perhaps they need to go off into the wilderness to hear thier vioce clearly and unfilterded .
"Brother"

 

[G.Kai]

Fair enough I can agree with all that. It's good to see the different sides of things.

The only thing I would argue is how relation religion to science invariable becomes pantheism.

I don't think pantheism needs to be the case, any more than it would be in a monotheistic religion. I'm assuming by scientific pantheism you mean that the inevitable conclusion of science would be that the essence of the scientific God would indwell all things, making all things venerable.

If we look at ourselves, for example, we have our several parts, but we also have a brain that runs the whole organism, and without the brain, the organism ceases to function. I also think it's safe to assume that since there is intelligence here on earth, there must be intelligence in the universe, but I take the view that nothing can be that isn't there already. If there is a scientific God, I would take a quasi-monotheistic view that although the intelligence of God (I use intelligence for lack of a better word), is the progenitor of the universe, it doesn't necessarily follow that the intelligence of God indwells all things to the point we should venerate those things that are created. I believe just as we can separate our own several parts from the brain, we can also separate intelligence from intelligent design.

My point is not to start an argument about creator/creation relationships, like saying "The water lillies ARE Monet," or "The atomic bomb IS Oppenheimer." There is indeed a personal relationshp, but the created does not hold the entirety of the being who created it.

 

[Satya]

Perhaps those INFJ's have who have developed their so called Tertiary thinking have tuned out their intuition voice and have purely given into extroverted thinking of even others; because they cannot interpret clearly their intuition. Perhaps they need to go off into the wilderness to hear thier vioce clearly and unfilterded .
"Brother"

Meh. :mpick:

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I don't think pantheism needs to be the case, any more than it would be in a monotheistic religion. I'm assuming by scientific pantheism you mean that the inevitable conclusion of science would be that the essence of the scientific God would indwell all things, making all things venerable.

If we look at ourselves, for example, we have our several parts, but we also have a brain that runs the whole organism, and without the brain, the organism ceases to function. I also think it's safe to assume that since there is intelligence here on earth, there must be intelligence in the universe, but I take the view that nothing can be that isn't there already. If there is a scientific God, I would take a quasi-monotheistic view that although the intelligence of God (I use intelligence for lack of a better word), is the progenitor of the universe, it doesn't necessarily follow that the intelligence of God indwells all things to the point we should venerate those things that are created. I believe just as we can separate our own several parts from the brain, we can also separate intelligence from intelligent design.

My point is not to start an argument about creator/creation relationships, like saying "The water lillies ARE Monet," or "The atomic bomb IS Oppenheimer." There is indeed a personal relationshp, but the created does not hold the entirety of the being who created it.

Yes, I would be inclined to agree, for the most part :nod:
I've always felt that God, or at least some sort of higher power, did somehow create the universe as it is, with all its little laws and boundaries and cool little quirks factored in. He doesn't have to be in all things around us, but all things around us invariably came from Him.
A lot of people would argue with evolution against that, but I don't think that does much. I mean, why wouldn't God create a way that we can evolve if we need to? Do people really expect him to be constrained to creating a world that is unchangeable? Even we, as humans, create computers that can update themselves to suit the needs of it, so we aren't bothered with always having to make the changes ourselves. Why does God have be restrained, then, to "what is, is what always will be and what always was"?

And that's my personal view; another person may come to another view, and I like hearing about it. It's only when people close themselves off from change and other viewpoints that it becomes disappointing :/

 

[G.Kai]

Yes, I would be inclined to agree, for the most part :nod:
I've always felt that God, or at least some sort of higher power, did somehow create the universe as it is, with all its little laws and boundaries and cool little quirks factored in. He doesn't have to be in all things around us, but all things around us invariably came from Him.
A lot of people would argue with evolution against that, but I don't think that does much. I mean, why wouldn't God create a way that we can evolve if we need to? Do people really expect him to be constrained to creating a world that is unchangeable? Even we, as humans, create computers that can update themselves to suit the needs of it, so we aren't bothered with always having to make the changes ourselves. Why does God have be restrained, then, to "what is, is what always will be and what always was"?

And that's my personal view; another person may come to another view, and I like hearing about it. It's only when people close themselves off from change and other viewpoints that it becomes disappointing :/

I agree with you, especially about people who close themselves off. I don't mind discussing religion, or spirituality or evolution. I don't care for it when people try to press on me their rigid doctrines. If a lot of humans were up for it, I believe if people could open their minds completely, we might experience the same God, you know - I mean, someone was talking about how it's likely that we all see the same blue. You see the same blue that I see. It would seem that since religious and insight experiences have trans-faith similarities, that we'd all see the same blue when it comes to God.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I agree with you, especially about people who close themselves off. I don't mind discussing religion, or spirituality or evolution. I don't care for it when people try to press on me their rigid doctrines. If a lot of humans were up for it, I believe if people could open their minds completely, we might experience the same God, you know - I mean, someone was talking about how it's likely that we all see the same blue. You see the same blue that I see. It would seem that since religious and insight experiences have trans-faith similarities, that we'd all see the same blue when it comes to God.

I don't think will happen anytime soon on a world wide scale...but it would be really cool if it did. I think the day that happens will be the day the Earth might see some real peace.

 

[J. Cardigan]

I realised a long time ago that I don't believe in the Christian form of God. To my mind, God and the devil are ambiguous personifications of forces humans fail to understand.

Over the years, I feel like I've grown spiritually and I accept that I will never know how we or the universe came to be (unless I find out when I die, which would be nifty).

There's obviously something out there that is far beyond our understanding. I'm perfectly okay with Christianity and I'm glad for those who have something to guide them throughout their lives. To say that the Earth was made in seven days a few thousand years ago just strikes me as kind of short-sighted, though.

 

[Satya]

Well said.

 

[G.Kai]

I realised a long time ago that I don't believe in the Christian form of God. To my mind, God and the devil are ambiguous personifications of forces humans fail to understand.

Well said indeed. I think, but I'm not sure, that something is happening, phenomenologically speaking. If we are to at least partially trust our senses, or even our intuition, I find that I must come, with great humility, to the understanding that things beyond things are going on around us. Things that cannot be perceived by either sensory or intuitive experience, that we need to realize that we are perhaps not the crown of creation, and that as humans, some of these things we may never grasp.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Well, the thing about Christianity that a lot of people fail to realize, even within the religion, is that the bible was written by people. Even the apostles were still men; Peter, who was sexist, was very religious, but his sexism was probably more due to the society he was living in than the word of God.

And when they say the world was made in 7 days a couple thousand years ago....did they have the same calendar as we do? Did they even have a proper calendar at the very beginning of humanity? I don't think that part was really meant to be taken seriously. My sister points out that each "day" actually coincides with a certain point in the scientific theory of how the universe and Earth was made.
I mean, really; what's a "day" for God? A couple thousand years? Who knows.

 

[Satya]

I mean, really; what's a "day" for God? A couple thousand years? Who knows.

Well considering the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, I would say that makes a day in God's book about 2 billion years. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and the fossil record shows that humanity has only existed for about 250,000 years, so our species doesn't even make up a drop in the bucket when it comes to the time. That means, God's days are probably not equal length. What I also don't understand is why God made dinosaurs if he was going to have man inherent the earth. 65 million years ago or so, he just decided to kill off 99.99% of them just for the hell of it?

To be honest, I always consider this kind of Christian reasoning to be ex post facto hypothesizing. By that, I mean retroactively taking what is learned and trying to make those facts fit the Christian beliefs. In that sense it is very faulty logic since there is no evidence inherent in Christianity to collaborate with a new explaination. For example, nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that a day in God's life is longer than a day in a human's life.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Yes, but even if they didn't directly say it, doesn't mean God's way is necessarily human's way. If God did create the universe, then he would have been without constraint to what a "day" is. Beyond the bible, simply the nature of God could very well allow Him to have a different concept of a "day."
That's the thing about Christian religion; no one knows whether it is totally figurative, partially based in reality, or should be read as 100% truth. I think it is mostly figurative, especially in the earlier sections, and I consider the entity of God over the writings of man about Him.
And, while Christians do line up teachings from the bible to science, there's nothing that says that they can't I mean, it may seem a bit weak to some other people, but there are some facts that line up quite nicely, actually.
According to the bible, animals came before people. Dinosaurs came before people. While it doesn't go into details about all of that, one could interpret even evolution from this part of the bible.