Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

---

Christianity isn't about morals. This is an absurd straw man. Christianity is about a relationship with Christ and accepting the salvation that comes only through Him. Most moral systems whether religious or not are the same. The difference in Christianity is Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

---

How, exactly, could there be right and wrong in the plant world, the unicellular world, or the inanimate world? It must be human or above to be moral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

You have it wrong, though I won't try to prove it to you beyond this. I could give you articles and point you in the direction of religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism that support this ontology, among others, but that's not my place. The basic idea is that we are not seperate from the world. To believe so is delusion, and a fallacy. We're part of the world, and part of each other, not removed in any way. Everything is connected, and part of a pleonasm, etc., etc.

---

Well, then that is why you and I disagree - neither Hinduism nor Buddhism properly accounts for reality as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

As for the other, whether right and wrong exist, I was only agreeing with someone else on this forum. And yes, right and wrong do exist in the human world. Here's an enlightening excerpt from an article on zen, that is mentioning right and wrong. I guess differences arise when we look at the world framed on different levels.


"It is indeed the basic intuition of Zen that there is an ultimate standpoint from which "anything goes." In the celebrated words of the master Yun-men, "Every day is a good day." Or as is said in the Hsin-hsin-Ming:

If you want to get to the plain truth,
Be not concerned with right and wrong.
The conflict between right and wrong
Is the sickness of the mind.

---

A chief flaw in Zen philosophy. Human behavior is rarely neutral in nature; our actions and attitudes have clear consequences in terms of effect upon ourselves and those around us. Some of the these actions/attitudes are harmful to ourselves and our relationships with others; these would logically be described as "wrong."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

But this standpoint does not exclude and is not hostile towards the distinction between right and wrong at other levels and in more limited frames of reference. The world is seen to be beyond right and wrong when it is not framed: that is to say, when we are not looking at a particular situation by itself - out of relation to the rest of the universe. Within this room there is a clear difference between up and down; out in interstellar space there is not. Within the conventional limits of a human community there a clear distinctions between good and evil. But these disappear when human affairs are seen as part and parcel of the whole realm of human nature. Every framework sets up a restricted field fo relationships, and restriction is law or rule..."

---

Metaphysical rationalizations about right and wrong do little to deal with the reality that here on earth and amongst human beings there are behaviors and attitudes that are clearly beneficial and clearly harmful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

---

The only thing we "have to believe" is that God is real and that it is through Jesus Christ that we may obtain eternal life. The belief in objective right and wrong is not to "validate" our "worldview" but is rather a result of believing in God. You have the cart before the horse. Christianity "stole" nothing from the ancient Greeks; the existence of the idea of right and wrong in culture is a reflection of the reality of God within all cultures - even those that don't fully acknowledge Him. One must actively reject God to remove His influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

---

Please - don't flatter yourself with the typical atheist "We are clearer sighted than the Christian" mantra. That's bogus all the way. Morality existed long before the Bible ever made it into print form. Cultures that have never even heard of the Bible have certain moral restrictions. Whether or not right and wrong exist outside of the human world is kind of a moot point, isn't it? Since we're humans and we're discussing these things, then it does matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

---

No, wait my friends, AP makes a good point. It is the very nature of man, and many scientists would say, the animal nature of man that causes right and wrong. Why does a person suddenly go off it and kill when all of his or her neighbors are prepared to swear that they were very mild-mannered? Why is it that if a person does not develop a conscience by a certain age, they will never have one and be a sociopath? We are human, yes, but we are the highest order of primates and still animal. Even people who proclaim Christianity or other religions or some pathway of peaceful living have the danger of allowing the animal within to get loose at times. I do not really disagree with her stance as to where the right and wrong originates. I just believe in a power stronger than myself. Because if I depended solely on myself, I could easily slip over the line with all of the problems I have had.

That, said, we are wandering off the subject again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

That, said, we are wandering off the subject again...

---

You're right. Time for a topic realignment. I'll go first:

God created the world in six days; life began as a purposeful creation of a Divine Being as an expression of His love. Reality contains an order, purpose and meaning that points to an initiator with a rational mind rather than the chaotic and random forces of nature. The cohesive of reality cannot possibly have come into existence by accident, and evolution cannot (even with its massive time allotment) account for much of the complexity and purposeful nature of reality. Life cannot come into existence by accident; matter cannot create itself.


There.

I agree with the premise of creation. I think you could guess that. But I have some points to raise: 1.) the first section of Genesis is written in poetic form, which is rarely meant to be taken literally in scripture. Don't get me wrong, I believe in ex nihilo creation, but it IS poetic form. 2.) Days... how? There wasn't even a sun until the third day, and the sun causes the rotation of the earth. Plus, the Israelites counted days by sunrises and sunsets. So, I don't believe in one day, two days, three days, etc. progression of creation. To this end, I find it plausible to accept the Big Bang, provided it is allowed that divine activity set the matter in place.

....And so the circle of argument begins again with the same debunked arguments as previously. This should be fun.

My two cents, sorry if this is repeating previously made points. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Both are theories. I choose to believe them, cos I've got free will and religion requires faith in things you cannot understand. We cannot cite any evidence in support of the existence of God because by definition, he exists in a realm outside of human material experience. So we have no material evidence that he exists. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a God. It seems to me that there is no material evidence for creationism. The bible isn't literal, surely, or else we'd all be going around chopping our hands off and hopping on one foot. We're not supposed to understand how the world was created, because if we did, we'd be God. To say that evolution isn't real however seems to require a serious amount of trickery in my head. There may be other explanations, but I've not heard any as convincing. So what if God didn't create everything in one 'zap' of his finger? Maybe that's just they way it can be expressed to us so that we understand it. Evolution doesn't stop me believing in God.

One correction: God would be considered a hypothesis rather than a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyn

My two cents, sorry if this is repeating previously made points. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Both are theories. I choose to believe them, cos I've got free will and religion requires faith in things you cannot understand. We cannot cite any evidence in support of the existence of God because by definition, he exists in a realm outside of human material experience. So we have no material evidence that he exists. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a God. It seems to me that there is no material evidence for creationism. The bible isn't literal, surely, or else we'd all be going around chopping our hands off and hopping on one foot. We're not supposed to understand how the world was created, because if we did, we'd be God. To say that evolution isn't real however seems to require a serious amount of trickery in my head. There may be other explanations, but I've not heard any as convincing. So what if God didn't create everything in one 'zap' of his finger? Maybe that's just they way it can be expressed to us so that we understand it. Evolution doesn't stop me believing in God.

---

There's plenty of material evidence for God. It's just that not all of it is so obvious. I would recommend reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life though. You may have a change of heart with regards to your notion that there's no evidence. Faith is not blind.

Reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life is likely to sway one to the other side, if anything.

That aside, even if the historical person existed that has no bearing on whether he is God or not. I suppose reading up on the historicity of Muhammad's life should convince of us God, otherwise....

Also, I'd like to know what this material evidence is. I was not aware of such evidence when I was a Christian and I'm certainly not aware of it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

Reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life is likely to sway one to the other side, if anything.

That aside, even if the historical person existed that has no bearing on whether he is God or not. I suppose reading up on the historicity of Muhammad's life should convince of us God, otherwise....

Also, I'd like to know what this material evidence is. I was not aware of such evidence when I was a Christian and I'm certainly not aware of it now.

---

So you even doubt Jesus existed? Well that basically renders your opinions meaningless doesn't it? The only scholars who still believe that are considered kooks, and that's even by people who aren't remotely sympathetic to Christianity.

When inquiring into the subject without the a priori assumption of his existence you'll find that there is not enough evidence of his existence to classify him as a historical figure. He's quite clearly classed as a mythological one, until of course, we can dig up some reliable evidence for his existence (assuming this ever occurs).

As for it rendering my opinions meaningless: No. What would render my opinions meaningless would be if I decided "I am a Christian, therefore Jesus Christ exists. This is a fact. Now, it's time to go find evidence to prove what I know to be a fact and anyone who disagrees with me is insane" like the scholars that you've recommended do and you yourself seem to do.

I fail to see what you mean by the scholars 'who still believe that' since this is a fairly recent development in historical scholarship and is not kooky in any sense. Doherty and Price for example are considered to be high quality scholars even if they are in the minority. If you would try reading works on the historicity or lack thereof of Jesus that aren't by Christian apologists and deal with the subject in a more balanced matter you would realize this.

By the way, I love the evasive tactics there. You will not find any material evidence to support the existence of God, and thus, you attack my point of view on the historicity of Jesus on some rather shoddy grounds.