Evolution vs. Creation

[Redzeppelin]

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

I have no idea how to respond to this. Right and wrong exist in the human world - period. We are not "all one" - I have a distinct identity as do you as does everybody else in the world. We should help our "brother/sister" out of course - but we are not "all one."

[Pendragon]

Am I missing something, or has this thread gone off target for sometime now? How is the discussion of various religious books actually coming close to the meat of the stated problem, which is evolution vs creation? Can it be that every arguement both sides could think of have already been presented, discussed, and neither side is prepared to move an inch, convinced that they were right to start with? And those of us who will say that it took a God to start things, not chance, but evolution has absolutely been proven as the shaper of the world as we know it, what of us? To the evolutionist, we do not go far enough, for we still insist on God. To the Creationist, we are near blasphemy, for we use the horrible word "evolution" freely.

I have said it before and will say it again. When the horse is dead, bury it. No amount of beating it will make it get up and walk. And this horse, this arguement, is dead. It seems people grope for things to argue about.

[Dark Star]

First, I wish to point out that there's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' since evolution is not a religiosu belief. It's simply a derogatory term creationists use as a back-handed way of saying "You have to have just as much faith as us to accept evolution as being true!"

Second, I've yet to find an atheist that accepts evolution that will think that those who believe in theistic evolution are 'not going far enough'. Believe me...to us it's more like 'Good! One less intelligent design advocate trying to force religion into the science classroom!' Personally, I find it good that a lot of folks who are christians also accept evolution. It makes it very clear that the false dichotomy of atheists (those who accept evolution) and christians (those who are creationists) is just that -- a false dichotomy.

Third, all of that said...I agree with you for the most part. We've pretty much beaten the dead horse to a pulp by now. At the very least, I hope to keep evolution vs. creationism discussions in this topic in the future, since from my experience the forum is filled to the brim with that rather than discussion of religious texts.

[Pendragon]

First, I wish to point out that there's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' since evolution is not a religious belief. It's simply a derogatory term creationists use as a back-handed way of saying "You have to have just as much faith as us to accept evolution as being true!"

My apologies if you found the word derogatory. I certainly did not mean it in that manner at all. Because I believe in God does not blind me to science. Look how far we have progressed in the last century, and yet that is still so very little. We learn, but we have learned more than anything else not to rush things, because rushing is where costly mistakes happen.

In a way, I do think it takes faith, not to believe in evolution, but to believe that chance started everything. That is where I must deviate a bit. I cannot accept chance, I think it took a much higher power, a God.

Second, I've yet to find an atheist that accepts evolution that will think that those who believe in theistic evolution are 'not going far enough'. Believe me...to us it's more like 'Good! One less intelligent design advocate trying to force religion into the science classroom!' Personally, I find it good that a lot of folks who are Christians also accept evolution. It makes it very clear that the false dichotomy of atheists (those who accept evolution) and Christians (those who are creationists) is just that -- a false dichotomy.

And you may be right. I know that many atheists on the forum respect me, as I do them, for I refuse to get caught up in the name-calling stuff that is bad form for either side and does nothing to further either cause. If the person disagrees, let them. I have found very few switch sides.

Third, all of that said...I agree with you for the most part. We've pretty much beaten the dead horse to a pulp by now. At the very least, I hope to keep evolution vs. creationism discussions in this topic in the future, since from my experience the forum is filled to the brim with that rather than discussion of religious texts.

Well, it isn't just religious texts, but this and that philosopher, and quote every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

The reason I have problems with this is there is always a "Christians and/or religious people cannot think for themselves." stated somewhere along the line. Now, if a person patterns their stance on life after a certain philosopher, and quote him or her constantly, who is doing the thinking there, the person or the philosopher? Many things have a double edge.

It could be argued, "But this has been proven empirically true." Not according to this other, equally well-known philosopher, with opposing views. Difficulty arises. In a way, I'd like to see a thread where people were forbidden to quote anyone. A complete “Think for yourself” thread.

God Bless

Pen

[Dark Star]

To clarify: I didn't mean that you were using it in a derogative manner...just that that's the origin and common use of the word. I didn't get that vibe from your statement. As for the philosopher issue: I believe we (the forum members, not you and me) actually discussed this in another thread somewhere around here...

[weepingforloman]

Requiem interra Pax, thread. (Hey, look at me, I used Latin and I'm not even Catholic!)

[NikolaiI]

I have no idea how to respond to this. Right and wrong exist in the human world - period. We are not "all one" - I have a distinct identity as do you as does everybody else in the world. We should help our "brother/sister" out of course - but we are not "all one."

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.

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.

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..."

Anyway.

[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.

[Gorilla King]

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.

[weepingforloman]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

[Pendragon]

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...

[Redzeppelin]

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.

[weepingforloman]

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.

[Dark Star]

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