Evolution vs. Creation

[JGL57]

I meant what I said. Given that nature would seem to point to a godless world, why do so many believe in a God?

Oh. OK. So we are on the same page, just not quite on the same paragraph.

Given that all of modern science (say, the last three hundred years) has made tremendous progress in both understanding and manipulating our perceived reality, in ways our ancient of days religions can only dream of, and that modern science is based on a presumption of philosophical materialism, and given that NO experimental or observable evidence has come forth refuting in any way that presumption, and given that if any scientist DID demonstrate some idealism or mystic force or entity he/she would become the most famous scientist in history, so there is NO motivation not to look for such, or cover it up if found - then, yes, a logically thinking person, regardless of whether he/she was an atheist or a person "of faith" should admit exactly what you have - that all evidence points directly to a natural universe, as generally defined by modern science and the secular humanist association.

You are aware, or you not, that as a pure fideist you are in a small minority within the "faith" community, are you not?

Anyway, to the question "Why do so many believe in god?" Well, rather than give you the 5,000 word answer this question really deserves, I will just refer you to another mere man, now deceased, named Joseph Campbell, who was generally recognized as having been at the top of his field - comparative mythology (much of which you would distinguish as "religion", at this point). Read about 10 or 15, maybe 20 of his books and I think that you, being as obviously bright and inquisitive as you are, could maybe possibly come into an actual understanding of these ultimate issues.

That is, if Campbell can explain religious belief (mythic concepts) as a perfectly natural phenomenon of human culture (biology, even), then what have you got? - nothing more than a devout Buddhist who has achieved Satori, apparently. And that would be a good thing.

So, in return, I will read the bible. - - No, wait, I have already read it -twice, all the way through. So, looks like I'm ahead of the game.

(BTW, I see that many of Campbell's lectures are on youtube. You could start there, I guess.)

[bazarov]

My ratio says Evolution, but man is to perfect to be result of X and Y.

[weepingforloman]

Oh. OK. So we are on the same page, just not quite on the same paragraph.

Given that all of modern science (say, the last three hundred years) has made tremendous progress in both understanding and manipulating our perceived reality, in ways our ancient of days religions can only dream of, and that modern science is based on a presumption of philosophical materialism, and given that NO experimental or observable evidence has come forth refuting in any way that presumption, and given that if any scientist DID demonstrate some idealism or mystic force or entity he/she would become the most famous scientist in history, so there is NO motivation not to look for such, or cover it up if found - then, yes, a logically thinking person, regardless of whether he/she was an atheist or a person "of faith" should admit exactly what you have - that all evidence points directly to a natural universe, as generally defined by modern science and the secular humanist association.

You are aware, or you not, that as a pure fideist you are in a small minority within the "faith" community, are you not?

Anyway, to the question "Why do so many believe in god?" Well, rather than give you the 5,000 word answer this question really deserves, I will just refer you to another mere man, now deceased, named Joseph Campbell, who was generally recognized as having been at the top of his field - comparative mythology (much of which you would distinguish as "religion", at this point). Read about 10 or 15, maybe 20 of his books and I think that you, being as obviously bright and inquisitive as you are, could maybe possibly come into an actual understanding of these ultimate issues.

That is, if Campbell can explain religious belief (mythic concepts) as a perfectly natural phenomenon of human culture (biology, even), then what have you got? - nothing more than a devout Buddhist who has achieved Satori, apparently. And that would be a good thing.

So, in return, I will read the bible. - - No, wait, I have already read it -twice, all the way through. So, looks like I'm ahead of the game.

(BTW, I see that many of Campbell's lectures are on youtube. You could start there, I guess.)

The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology... Joseph Campbell hasn't undone us. Nor has Freud, Darwin, etc. Science is not incompatible with God. It all comes down to faith. I guess the point I was trying to get across before is, why would human beings evolve (speaking from the standpoint of the general public) a tendency to believe in God? It is not beneficial to survival, and may actually make it easier to die (sacrifices take away from food, morals make it easier to be taken advantage of, etc.). If you have already read the Bible twice (I admit I have never read Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Malachi, or Lamentations all the way through... but hey, I've got about 56 years left in life!) I recommend reading some of the great theological works. I myself am currently reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and, as a sixteen-year-old with semi-ADD, I have spent roughly three months on the first 350 pages. You will probably finish before me if you start in January.

[JGL57]

The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology... Joseph Campbell hasn't undone us. Nor has Freud, Darwin, etc. Science is not incompatible with God. It all comes down to faith. I guess the point I was trying to get across before is, why would human beings evolve (speaking from the standpoint of the general public) a tendency to believe in God? It is not beneficial to survival, and may actually make it easier to die (sacrifices take away from food, morals make it easier to be taken advantage of, etc...

Funny - Campbell, Freud, Darwin and many others, such as cultural anthropologists, address the specifics you mentioned, plus tons more, and provide naturalistic explanations for all - no miracle is required. Are you sure you are that well-read in these authors and it wasn't just that some person or persons whose authority you respect merely TOLD you they have come up short?

As to your statement "Science is not compatible with god." - that is what is known as a throwaway question. EVERYTHING, no matter what, is compatible with god buy definition, since part of god's attributes are his incomprehensibility, ineffability and eternal and infinite mind that no mere man can understand. As the old atheist saying goes, it is easier to nail jello to the wall than argue for the incompatibility of god with anything.

God, like house-hauntings or leprechauns, is beyond cogitation, and that which is beyond proof and disproof MIGHT exist. That is your never-ending advantage.

[weepingforloman]

Funny - Campbell, Freud, Darwin and many others, such as cultural anthropologists, address the specifics you mentioned, plus tons more, and provide naturalistic explanations for all - no miracle is required. Are you sure you are that well-read in these authors and it wasn't just that some person or persons whose authority you respect merely TOLD you they have come up short?

I did not mean, by mentioning them, that I had read them... That post was made by me in a vacuum. I am curious to hear these explanations. If you know them off the top of your head, will you please post them?

As to your statement "Science is not compatible with god." - that is what is known as a throwaway question. EVERYTHING, no matter what, is compatible with god buy definition, since part of god's attributes are his incomprehensibility, ineffability and eternal and infinite mind that no mere man can understand. As the old atheist saying goes, it is easier to nail jello to the wall than argue for the incompatibility of god with anything.

God, like house-hauntings or leprechauns, is beyond cogitation, and that which is beyond proof and disproof MIGHT exist. That is your never-ending advantage.

I'm afraid you misread. I said science is not INcompatible with God. I'm very aware that God is beyond the reaches of my mind, if He was not, no doubt I would be doing something else at the moment.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology...

Please provide me with the names of such theologians who also have a sufficient grounding in psychology, preferably evolutionary psuchology, to talk about "instinct." And if you can, refer me to the work(s) in which they do so.

[Redzeppelin]

we've refused to accept moral attrocities for centuries, yet they still exist. perhaps its in accepting immoralities that will lead to their inexistence. after all, the first step to recovery of an addict is to accept his/her status as an addict.

You just proved my point - one must contradict himself to be a moral relativist. Your statement is loaded with inaccurate uses of language. First, who says we've "accepted" moral atrocities "for centuries"? What do you mean "accepted"? Said it was OK? Found it agreeable? What? Next, what do you mean "accept" immorality? How does one do that and what does that accomplish? Your use of "accept" is clearly problematic. Finally, you've made an inaccurate comparison in your final sentence; it's a different thing to face the truth about oneself (I'm an addict) than it is to allow actions that one knows is wrong. No comparison - one is facing truth, the other is denying truth exists.

[weepingforloman]

Please provide me with the names of such theologians who also have a sufficient grounding in psychology, preferably evolutionary psuchology, to talk about "instinct." And if you can, refer me to the work(s) in which they do so.

Theologians are comfortable taking information from authorities in other fields. I see no reason why a theologian should not be allowed to merely study the work of a Jung or a Freud, and use their findings as the basis of discussion. I refer you first of all to The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis.

[NikolaiI]

This statement is absurd. Right and wrong absolutely exist because the minute you express some sort of evaluation about behavior that repulses you, you have indicated a moral standard of some sort. If right and wrong do not exist, then no behavior can be evaluated in terms of negative or positive - it just "is." This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).

Nono, it's not absurd at all, it's right on target. You should consider changing your mind. Lol.

Right and wrong don't exist in nature. They're purely human concepts. A hunter doesn't think it's wrong to eat a predator, etc. But don't go an think I'm some kind of sinner for saying that now.

Pretty much everything we hold to be true, down to the most basic assumptions, are false, or at least not wholly true. The whole realm of boundaries is all arbitrary, if we are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. Mystics of all religions (including Christians) and philosophers have come to the same basic wisdom. As Nietzsche says, "There is no thing."

There is no you or me, no us vs. them, no race, etc. - we are all one - this is called cognizant ontology. It is way off base to assume this leads to evil, or any kind of acceptance or approval. Cognizant ontology...is a wonderful thing. We are all one, and so we should not hesitate to lend help if someone is hurt, etc., just as we would not hesitate to bandage our arm if we hurt it, but do it automatically.

Just some thoughts, what do you think?

Nikolai

[PrinceMyshkin]

Nono, it's not absurd at all, it's right on target. You should consider changing your mind. Lol.

Right and wrong don't exist in nature. They're purely human concepts. A hunter doesn't think it's wrong to eat a predator, etc. But don't go an think I'm some kind of sinner for saying that now.

Pretty much everything we hold to be true, down to the most basic assumptions, are false, or at least not wholly true. The whole realm of boundaries is all arbitrary, if we are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. Mystics of all religions (including Christians) and philosophers have come to the same basic wisdom. As Nietzsche says, "There is no thing."

There is no you or me, no us vs. them, no race, etc. - we are all one - this is called cognizant ontology. It is way off base to assume this leads to evil, or any kind of acceptance or approval. Cognizant ontology...is a wonderful thing. We are all one, and so we should not hesitate to lend help if someone is hurt, etc., just as we would not hesitate to bandage our arm if we hurt it, but do it automatically.

Just some thoughts, what do you think?

Nikolai

If indeed we are all one, that explains my alarming weight.

I will have to look up this "Cognizant ontology"

[NikolaiI]

If indeed we are all one, that explains my alarming weight.

I will have to look up this "Cognizant ontology"

Well, yeah, it's just that Jesus was a mystic, and other Christian mystics were remarkably similar to mystics everywhere, yet anything that approaches the ontology of eastern religions is ridiculed by so many westerners. Things like - there is no good or evil. That doesn't mean you think evil is good, and it quite likely indicates a belief in a similar ontology, which is the opposite of the assumption that Red made, which is that it is all about compassion, empathy, etc. As well as saying that the definitions and boundaries we create are illusions, anyway - like Good and Evil, subject and object, us vs. them, East and West, etc. Christianity, atheism, religion (imagine), countries, etc.

I guess I don't really know what I'm talking about, it's just my beliefs. A lot of it is Zen Buddhism influenced, and Hindu. Cognizant ontology might be a new thing, I couldn't find it on google or wikipedia, so I don't know. I read an article about it once, which is gone now. I guess basically it's the same thing as the Buddhist idea that we're not seperate from the world, etc.

-And it is not absurd. Just about everything else is.

[weepingforloman]

I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.

Do you never weary of this Rubik's Cube of turning and twisting to get all the colours aligned? Just as physicists posit the Grand Unified Theory that underlies all the laws of nature, do you never wonder if there IS a God, that the path to him would be clear and straight, and not require armies of theologians? Instead, something like Be at peace and extend peace to all your neighbours. All the rest is chaff.

[NikolaiI]

I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.

That's what I said, that Christ was a mystic, and the Christian mystics I know were like mystics of other religions; words don't say it. You should read Henri Nouwen.

[weepingforloman]

Not all Christian mystics are non-dualists. Christ was not a mystic in the ordinary sense, He was God. And, unless He was a total liar, He believed in a dual universe, and a universe in which souls are distinct.