Darwin and Christianity: No Contradiction

[gorilla199uncensored]

" Faith and evolution are not, in fact, contradictions in terms. "

When you get smashed by science, there comes a time when you just have to lie about what the bible says to pretend its true and fits in with reality.

[Oranjeklant]

Isn't a Doctor of Theology someone who knows everything about things that do not exist ? Like a Doctor in Astrology or a Doctor in Homeopathy ?

[flockofseagulls87]

Dawkins, Dennet, Harris etc writing about religion is like Bob the red sox fan writing a book about the New York Yankees. Strong personal biases are beyond obvious. It isn't hard for intelligent minds like their own to present the facts in a twisted way so that those who don't know any better (you) take it as gospel.

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

@flockofseagulls87 Bertrand Russell once said, "I do like clear & exact thinking, because when you allow yourself to think inexactly, your biases & your predudices come in, in all kinds of ways which you don't notice, self-deception is very easy." 'The God delusion' is writen from a biased & personal viewpoint. If you go to Dawkin's website its not about evolution anymore, it's all about Atheism. It even has a merchandise section where with t-shirts, mugs & atheist hats, it's a bit bizarre.

[Valelacerte]

@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 I do like that quote, it sums up Ken Miller's, Francis Collins', and John F. Haught's rationalisations for the existence of God. The moment God is the topic, all rigour and logic goes out the window; they seem to sense no imperative to explain exactly where or what God is, how they know, or what empirical evidence there is to support such a claim. Suddenly Miller becomes a vague, obfuscating Theologian. For these men, God is clearly exempt from the scientific method.

[lizardman77]

@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 "it's a bit bizarre." So is Dawkins himself...lol

[flockofseagulls87]

I also don't know why you brought up evolution because I have never argued against it. I know many atheists, and for the most part the ones I know are reasonable and intelligent and are capable of a civil debate with those in the opposite camp. They would be embarassed to have you among their ranks.

[flockofseagulls87]

A postmodernist is one who is wary of objective truths. In your case, these truths are moral. Most people believe telling 4 year olds about sex is not appropriate to their development. You don't. You told me twice now that religion is about subservience and control but you offer no argument to back that up. Such a simplistic view of religious traditions is unwarranted considering how deeply ingrained the monotheistic faiths are in our culture, history, and even our science and philosophy.

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 How's this for some objective truths? God does not exist, any more than the Easter Bunny; evolution is a fact; science provides the best and really the only answers to human existence and the best way to run our lives; religion is a sick, sad, sadistic shibboleth designed to impoverish, demean and corrupt the human spirit. I could go on but I think that's probably more objective truth than you can handle for the moment.

[flockofseagulls87]

@colourmegone You are doing nothing but spewing the most subjective garbage possible. I've heard all of it before. You're not arguing with logic and rationality, but with your emotions. Hell, you're not arguing a point at all. You're like a child who slams his foot on the ground. It doesn't take a phd in philosophy of science to understand the substance of your claim, "I hate religion. Therefore, religion is false".

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 You said "A postmodernist is one who is wary of objective truths" I was demonstrating that either your definition is deficient or I am not a postmodernist. So you see I was making a very salient point. So far as religion I was making an objective critique. My personal feelings are much more negative. And if you think those are bad listen to Dr Dawkins (evolutionist), Dr Dennet (philosopher) or Mr Hitchens (journalist) or a hundreds of others on YouTube.

[flockofseagulls87]

@colourmegone Yes but the problem is that your personal feelings are all you have to go on. You have not even taken the time to understand the opposition. You have so much faith in your position that you do not feel the need to argue or even explain it. Resorting to frustrated outbursts and ridicule only means that you do not have an argument.

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 "personal feelings are all you have to go on" To reiterate, "listen to Dr Dawkins (evolutionist), Dr Dennet (philosopher) or Mr Hitchens (journalist)" add to those Dr Darrel Ray, author of "The God Virus" and a vast host of others. Plus numerous peer reviewed scientific papers in biology, anthropology, etc.

I base my position on substantial knowledge. You're the one with only personal feelings to guide you, those and an old book of Jewish mythology.

[flockofseagulls87]

@colourmegone I have read Dawkins, Dennet, and Hitchens. None of it was shocking or original. Any paper that claims to be scientific, no matter how prestigious the journal, is not at all scientific if the goal is to portray religion as a superstition and a virus. In fact, those who do present such a view are on the fringe of those who investigate the evolutionary basis of religion that very few balanced, rational individuals can take seriously.

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 My gracious reverend, you astound me! Dr Dawkins, Dr Hawking, Daniel Dennet the fringes of science? I would never have guessed it from their reputations as international figures of the scientific and philosphical establishment.

But so far as any evolutionary benefit from religion my question is cui bono? certainly not the vast majority of the human race who live in abject poverty clinging to their faith? Secular societies a much higher standard of living, lower crime, etc.

[flockofseagulls87]

@colourmegone Your straw men continue to apall me. Nowhere did I say that Hawking, Dawkins and Dennet were on the fringes of science. You would greatly benefit course on reading comprehension and analytical skills. What I did say was that any paper that used science to show that religion is some evil superstition or virus is unscientific and on the fringes of that particular field. And there are actually several studies that reveal evolutionary and psychological benefits of religious belief.

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 You exact words "...if the goal is to portray religion as a superstition and a virus. In fact, those who do present such a view are ON THE FRINGE of those who investigate the evolutionary basis of religion".

This demonstrates your complete lack of integrity and also calls into question your grasp on reality. It's very, very stupid to put forth an argument that can be refuted by your own words.

[flockofseagulls87]

@colourmegone Yes, I said those who present such a view are on the fringes of the scientific field of the evolutionary and physical basis of religious belief. I did not say that those who present such a view are on the fringes of science. There lies the difference. Dawkins is a gifted writer and evolutionary biologist and was a very fine popularizer of science before his atheist evangelical streak took over.

[flockofseagulls87]

@colourmegone When Dawkins is talking about the mechanisms of bacterial flagellum in an attempt to refute intelligent design, he is presenting an intelligent and mainstream view. Now if he or anyone else says that science shows us that religion is a virus, he is no longer being a scientist, but a rather second rate philospher and he is on the fringes of the "evolutionary basis of religion" field.

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 "a rather second rate philospher and he is on the fringes of the "evolutionary basis of religion" field." In your opinion that is. But then anyone who disagrees with you is no doubt on the "fringes".

In fact I have seen quite a few people who hold Phds in religion, sociology, and psychology who agree with Dr Dawkins analysis. I think you are the second rate philosopher here.

[flockofseagulls87]

Now, I hate to put a stop to your ego trip here but if you take a look at my comments you will find that not once did I say I was a christian or a jew. I am an agnostic. How can you claim to base your opinion on substantial knowledge when you can't even put a temporary halt to your prejudices to correctly interpret what someone is saying? Instead, you created a non existent religious opponent because you have your head so far up your own ass that you completely ignore what was actually said.

[colourmegone]

@gull You didn't have to state your affiliation, it was plain from the point of view which you put forward. I notice that you haven't thought to mention until now so I presume that someone has made a "suggestion".

At any rate religion is a stupid and deluded idea that has retarded the intellectual development of the human species. Those countries where it is weakest enjoy the highest standards of living in the world.

But then the religious can't wait to get to the "next" one, can they?

[flockofseagulls87]

It's called playing devil's advocate. I tend to defend viewpoints when the opposing one is biased and baseless. You made a category error based upon ignorant assumptions. And as far as I know, the United States is a very religious nation. It is also the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind with a rather religious middle class who have a considerably higher standard of living than the middle class of more "secular" nations.

[flockofseagulls87]

child asks you about war you are going to tell him that tens of thousands of fathers, husbands, and brothers were cut down by artillery, shrapnel and machine gun fire at the battle of the Somme? Are you going to delve into the holocaust and tell him about crematoriums and zyklon B? If you say yes, don't be surpised if your child grows up to be a fuck up. Think about that before you reply with some postmodernist drivel.

[flockofseagulls87]

Put yourself in the mind of a loving father, (which is how the Christian theist views God). Your 4 yr old asks you how babies are made. Are you going to tell him the truth? Probably not as it would be innapropriate for his age and development. You know that he will eventually learn the truth as he ages and develops. If you are a patient, loving father your explanation to your 4 yr old will be simplistic. You might throw in a moral lesson, but you are not trying to decieve the child.

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 You should tell him/her the truth, lying is a cheap way to assert dominance. In your mind the child may not be ready to learn the sexual nature life but by denying them this knowledge plant the idea that talking openly and honestly about such things is wrong. If they suffer sexual abuse, for example, they will be frightened to come to you because of how they think you feel about such matters. Do grow up, and let your children grow up as well.

[flockofseagulls87]

This reply tells me that you completely misunderstood the context of my comment. On the otherhand, to humor you, I know of no sane parent who tells their 4 year old the graphic details of copulation and reproduction. Children are spoken to like children. Its common sense. If a child asks me about war, I keep it simple and black and white. There are good guys, there are bad guys. Good guys shoot bad guys. That's about all a 4 year old can understand. Now are you honestly telling me that if your

[dolmitedalessandro]

I think SpinozasEcology's point was that, by the standards you are employing, then under no circumstance could you ever be wrong about religion.

If religious texts are meant to communicate metaphor and symbolism, then you're basically deciding that there's nothing that could possible disprove your religion.

How convenient!

[flockofseagulls87]

You seem to be missing the point. The truths that these texts try to convey are theological. For example, if you put Genesis in it's historical context, it is quite clear that the author's purpose (wether you believe he was divinely inspired or not) is to present a rational, monotheistic view of the world in which everything comes from one God over a ploytheistic one in which the Gods came forth from a primordial chaos to wrestle and create a little pocket of order.

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 All religion is about authority and subservience. It has nothing to do with Truth or Justice or The American Way in any sense. I address you in comic book terms because of the simplistic nature of your arguments. Freud wrote "The Future of an Illusion" to point out the superiority of patriarchal monotheistic Judaism over the polytheistic mishmash of Christianity. But it's all a mishmash, there is nothing in any of it to appeal to an intelligent adult.

[flockofseagulls87]

You address me in comic book terms because your infant mentality does not allow cordial dialogue with someone who holds a completely different opinion than your own. 

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 I address you in comic book terms because I've had enough experience with wingnuts to know how you think. I notice your only reply to the points I put was an hysterical ad hominem rant. This means that you are incapable of defending your position through honest, logical argument, thus proving my assumption correct.

[flockofseagulls87]

@colourmegone And here I was thinking that your comment to me was just such a rant. One that had no relevence to the point being made. Your comment was deliberately provocotave and hostile because this is the internet, and there are no consequences. And what is my position? The only thing I've gleaned from this discussion is that your views on child development are archaic, and that you have a self-righteous anti-religious agenda who thinks anyone who doesn't share his opinion is a moron.

[colourmegone]

@flockofseagulls87 Well, stop acting like a moron, or a child, and reply to the points I raised. 1 You should always tell your child the truth, not matter how uncomfortable it makes YOU feel. 2 Religion is all about subservience and control. And what, exactly, is post-modernist drivel? I certainly don't believe in religion but I don't think anyone who doesn't share my opinions is a moron.

[flockofseagulls87]

@colourmegone When children ask questions like that, almost all parents would tell them a watered down version of the truth. I don't know if you spent much time around 4 year olds, but telling them the details of sexual reproduction is a waste of time because they won't understand it at all, let alone grasp it on an experiential or intellectual level. In the same way, a God would probably not set out to teach a group of ancient farmers and traders the mechanics of biological evolution.

[zorgitron89]

The difference, perhaps, is in that those writing the bible were so "close" to the events they describe, and to which they attribute divine character.

[zorgitron89]

I think that is what the whole point of theology is, is it not? That we are trying to figure out: who God is, in what form he exists, does he exist, can we even know at all? We apply standards to the biblical texts in the same way we apply standards to other historic texts, and the bible, like modern theological writing, is an attempt to understand God, and figure out what sort of role he plays, who he is etc.

[spinozasecology]

So why is it that evolution is not once mentioned in the Bible? Of all the things for the Bible to skip over or get wrong, why skip over the origin of life?  Why get it wrong on so many levels?

The kind of reasoning theologians employ just seems so desperate. It's as though there is nothing that could prove the Bible wrong.

[rasoemedi]

the word "evolution" didn't exist at the time the Bible was written. Also the Bible isn't a history book, although many things that were written were based on historical accounts. Neither it is a scientific book, although like science, it speaks about Truth.

[spinozasecology]

OK, I agree that the Bible is not scientific or historical, but given what you are admitting (which Haught would agree with), how would you know if the Bible were wrong about God too? If a religious text doesn't have to be historically or scientifically true, then you might as well be a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Scientologist, since every religion would qualify as true by your standards.

[flockofseagulls87]

You're missing the point. Metaphor and symbolism is the language of religion. The Bible wasn't wrong about history or evolution because it wasn't trying to describe what happened in nature. It was trying to convey in the limited terminology of the day profound moral and theological teachings. The bible is about theology and meaning. Sceince and the study of history we can do well enough on our own.

[AndyMacOP]

Exactly flock! There is a disturbing trend in religion to move toward a complete locking-up of the Bible as the giver of all that there is to know, and the authentic Christian knows full well that God cannot be captured completely in the pages of any book, even the Sacred Scriptures. God is to be contemplated and sought after with abandon! The deeper in love with God one becomes, the greater the mystery, the greater the awe.

[dolmitedalessandro]

Show me one verse in the Bible that says it isn't trying to communicate history. Because there are quite a few verses that clearly indicate otherwise.