Your Religious Views

[Jrgh17]

Btw, this is a good site which explains evolution and changes in allele frequencies.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookEVOLII.html

 

[desertanimal]

And my bad on the early humans thing. I get them mixed up all the time. Desertanimal's right.

And who wouldn't? Once you get to the obligate bipeds it's like, well this one has this bump on the head and this one has THAT bump on the head. Makes my eyes glaze over, personally. I much prefer the part of primate evolution where you can say, well this one has arms and legs and fingers like this because it gets around like this, and that one has arms and legs and fingers like THAT because it gets around like THAT. Much easier to remember adaptive differences.

And you've made an excellent point. Most everyone is willing to accept that microevolution (change in allele freq.) happens because they can see it. But macroevolution (change at or above the species level) is not fundamentally different from micorevolution (this is the most difficult concept for intro students to grasp, I find). It is the result of microevolution over a long, long time. We can't see that happening because we're not here long enough. But we sure as hell can make predictions about what macroevolution should look like if it's the result of protracted microevolution, and if we go out into the fossil record and look for evidence of that process, lo and behold, we find the patterns of change we expect to find.

 

[Snakespeare]

In Genesis 1 it tells the story of how god made the world an the order of it .Genesis 2 it tells (in more detail ) how this happened.

The "more detail" argument really isn't supported by the text--or modern biblical scholarship. Roy's right--the animals are created before man in one version, and after in the second. Hard to get around that one. Man and woman also appear to be created at the same time in the first story, and in the second story Eve is clearly secondary--and subservient to Adam (having been created from his spare parts). The first creation story is the more recent one--the "priestly" source (P), dating to ca. 600 BCE or later. The second story--the "Jahwist" source (J) is much older, and has roots in ancient Sumerian mythology. The P version is also written in a form of Hebrew that is more modern than that of the J version, and even in English translation the stylistic differences are pretty obvious (very short, simple sentence in P; longer sentences and more narrative in J). The P version refers to "God" as Elohim, whereas the J version refers to him as Yahweh. This may offend some as "picking apart the text"--but this is the state of modern biblical scholarship on this matter. A glance at the editorial apparatus of the New Oxford Annotated Bible should confirm all of this to any doubters--not to mention the excellent Etz Hayim commentary on the Torah (produced by the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism).

I've only skimmed the thread, and may have missed something, but a cluster of questions that seem not have been raised for the believers come to mind:

Why is it okay to be empirical, rational, and scientific in all aspects of your lives except with regard to the ultimate origins of the universe and the question of what happens after death? If you go out to your car in the morning and it doesn't start, you know that there is an explanation. Either the car isn't getting fuel, or it isn't getting spark, and there's a way of figuring out what the problem is and solving it. So, if your car doesn't start, your initial response is not to think that your neighbor is a witch who has put a curse on your Honda. Similarly, if a hurricane hits New Orleans, your initial response is (hopefully) not that the citizens of the city are sinners who are being punished by God. Just because modern science doesn't offer conclusive explanations for the most profound scientific and philosophical issues doesn't mean we should abandon it. Historically, science has helped us understand so much about ourselves and our universe: About the relation of the earth to the sun, about tectonic plates, about the nature of genetics, about how to cure horrible diseases, about how to breed cool corn snakes, about the strangeness of quantum mechanics. Why abandon it now, except for a nostalgic and probably misplaced respect for a religion that advocates slavery, genocide, and intolerance (yes, it advocates good things too--but so did Plato, and I suspect that the ancient Hebrews frowned on murder and theft even before Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to them)?

Science cannot offer a bulletproof explanation of the Big Bang, or evolution, or anything else for that matter--but it's at least logically and empirically rigorous in a way that believing in Zeus or Thor or Yahweh or a divine teapot orbiting Jupiter is not. There is more scientific evidence for evolution than nearly any other scientific theory--if five pieces are missing out of a 500-piece puzzle you can can still get a pretty accurate view of the image at hand. Gravity is a theory too--anyone want to walk off the roof with me to test it? When I fire up my computer in the morning it doesn't say: "There are a few remaining disagreements about quantum theory so I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help you today."

On a lighter note--again, I've only skimmed this thread and may have missed something, but I'm a bit surprised that no one has commented on the serpent content in Genesis here. The anti-snake theme alone merits a critique from this audience, I should think. It's unfortunate that late Hebrew and early Christian commentary turned the poor serpent into Satan (no evidence of this in the text of the Hebrew Bible itself, though the text is pretty hard on the serpent in any case). Milton, at least, was charitable enough to note in his version of the story that the serpent was "not yet nocent" (i.e., innocent) before Satan inhabited his body.

 

[Eremita]

Hm, I suppose it would be inappropriate, given my user name, to fail to post here.

Science: Before I got into philosophy, I got pretty disappointed with those carrying the torch of science from the books Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies and The New Inquisition. Whatever the nature of things you take on authority will only be as good as that authority. Plus, your ontology and the way you understand time will affect the significance you find in the current scientific discoveries. They may simply be carefully defining our own world view rather than providing insight into an external reality, and our world view may not be healthy. I like the quote by Herbert Marcuse that "the subject that has conquered matter suffers under the dead weight of his conquest."

Religion: most folks don't realize how symbolic most of the material is. The ideas they were trying to express were both targeted to their audience at the time and difficult to state directly, as they required a new way of thinking. This problem leads to the Buddhist view that "All instruction is but a finger pointing to the moon." You have to experience the truth; I cannot just tell it to you. The distance there falls under Kierkegaards "leap of faith" for those of Western faiths. This usually does not sit well with those only versed in scientific thinking.

My own view does not fit well in the space of a page. But as for God(ess)((e)s), I think William James was onto something in The Varieties of Religious Experience when he discussed our experiences of higher beings:

Anything larger will do, if only it be large enough to trust for the next step. It need not be infinite, it need not be solitary. It might conceivably even be only a larger and more godlike self, of which the present self would then be but the mutilated expression, and the universe might conceivably be a collection of such selves, of different degrees of inclusiveness, with no absolute unity realized in it at all.​

-Sean

 

[Paradox]

I'd just like to quickly chip in with one or two things -

1. Firstly, thank you all for the replies and the sensible discussion. I'm working my way through it all now. Interesting to see that the poll is fairly even all things considered, I was expecting more of a differentiation towards Agnostic, but it seems people have their minds mostly made up.

2. I bought a book today which I would recommend for anyone interested in this topic - Religious or not, although the latter would probably enjoy it a bit more - called 'The God Delusion'. Despite the title which seems at first rather provocative, it is all explained inside, and I've just read through the two prefixes ( :grin01: ) so far, but I'm enjoying it greatly. It has some very interesting information and sources in it.

 

[desertanimal]

All this talk of evolution and religion has got me thinking about Galileo. When was it that he was officially pardoned by the catholic church for his sin of asserting that the Earth moved around the sun instead of the reverse? It was pretty recently, I think. I hope we don't have to wait that long for the church to embrace evolution.

 

[Snakespeare]

All this talk of evolution and religion has got me thinking about Galileo. When was it that he was officially pardoned by the catholic church for his sin of asserting that the Earth moved around the sun instead of the reverse? It was pretty recently, I think. I hope we don't have to wait that long for the church to embrace evolution.

Galileo's rehabilitation--early 1990s, as I recall.

The Catholic Church actually permits a kind of belief in evolution--as long as it is understood to be a process that is guided by God, and as long as the human soul is understood to be the creation of God alone. The encyclical Humani Generis (1950?), by Pius XII, is the relevant church document on this. I suspect that by the twentieth century the church knew it had been burned by the Galileo affair, and decided to be more cautious with Darwin.

 

[jaxom1957]

When was it that he was officially pardoned by the catholic church for his sin of asserting that the Earth moved around the sun instead of the reverse?

He was pardoned in 1992.

 

[JasonGranger]

Yes and yes. The universe is huge. It's probable that at least one world got the right conditions for life to occur, so I can believe it's a chance happening considering the size of it all, and yes I think it's entierly possible that this happened on more than one world, so there may well be aliens.

Think about this- if you took all the parts of a watch, put them in a shoebox, and shook the box up for (insert any amount of time here), when you opened the box, would you find a put-together watch or just the parts still?

 

[Roy Munson]

Think about this- if you took all the parts of a watch, put them in a shoebox, and shook the box up for (insert any amount of time here), when you opened the box, would you find a put-together watch or just the parts still?

What is this an argument against? Just wondering. If you're arguing for supernatural creation, watch parts aren't good analogues for chemicals and imperfectly-reproducing organisms.

 

[diamondlil]

Think about this- if you took all the parts of a watch, put them in a shoebox, and shook the box up for (insert any amount of time here), when you opened the box, would you find a put-together watch or just the parts still?

Depends if Uri Geller's visiting?

 

[tyflier]

I just wanted to say a couple of things...

First, I wanted to commend everyone for their respect and behavior throughout what can often turn into a deadly discussion. That's pretty cool...

Secondly, anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, should look into "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It's a very interesting way of looking at things, to say the least. It may not change your mind about anything, but at least it will encourage you to think about it from a different perspective. Here's a Wikipedia Link, with a pretty good entry on it.

 

[dr73]

an for anyone that does not believe in god should read the bible. Even Albert Einstein (probably not spelled right) a very great scientist said that there has to be a higher power at work!

 

[JasonGranger]

What is this an argument against? Just wondering. If you're arguing for supernatural creation, watch parts aren't good analogues for chemicals and imperfectly-reproducing organisms.

Okay, then... how about shaking up a bunch of chemicals and amoebas in a bottle for (insert any amount of time here) and expecting a fish.

Depends if Uri Geller's visiting?

lol that's pretty good.

 

[Snakespeare]

an for anyone that does not believe in god should read the bible. Even Albert Einstein (probably not spelled right) a very great scientist said that there has to be a higher power at work!

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God--a "God" that symbolizes the harmony of the universe, or nature, or some sort of cosmic order that can be quantified in mathematical terms--not a personal God who makes sure your toast isn't burned in the morning because you've prayed for a good breakfast the night before. So this is a God that is pretty far removed from traditional Judeo-Christian theology. Einstein certainly didn't believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so your comment is a bit of a non sequitur. I've read the Bible in toto, and I re-read portions on a weekly or monthly basis, and it doesn't make me believe in the God of Abraham any more than reading "'Twas the Night Before Christmas" every winter makes be believe in Santa Claus.

 

[dr73]

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God--a "God" that symbolizes the harmony of the universe, or nature, or some sort of cosmic order that can be quantified in mathematical terms--not a personal God who makes sure your toast isn't burned in the morning because you've prayed for a good breakfast the night before. So this is a God that is pretty far removed from traditional Judeo-Christian theology. Einstein certainly didn't believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so your comment is a bit of a non sequitur. I've read the Bible in toto, and I re-read portions on a weekly or monthly basis, and it doesn't make me believe in the God of Abraham any more than reading "'Twas the Night Before Christmas" every winter makes be believe in Santa Claus.

I never said Einstein said god I said a higher power an I never met a Christian that prayed for a good breakfast or thought god should watch there toast so your statement is well stupid. this is not suppose to be a who can make a better joke an if it was you would still loose so if your toast burns blame yourself not GOD!

 

[tyflier]

an for anyone that does not believe in god should read the bible. Even Albert Einstein (probably not spelled right) a very great scientist said that there has to be a higher power at work!

I have. It is a great book with TONS of entertaining stories, and loaded with moral lessons. Much like many other books I have read over the years. I think it is chock full of goodies, ranging from interesting historical perspectives, to incredible metaphores and explanations for misunderstood phenomona. The Bible in and of itself does not prove anything, though it can be an incredible source of inspiration, insight, guidance, and entertainment.

I am not an atheist, and fully believe that there is something "in charge". I am not prepared to even hazard a guess, as I truly believe that the possibilities are endless. I seriously consider theories such as those presented by movies like The Matrix. I seriously consider theories such as those presented by books like The Bible. I also seriously consider theories presented in books like The Selfish Gene. They are all good theories, and if one tries hard enough, there is a way to make all of them fit the evidence in one manner or another. Too many questions that haven't been answered...in fact...too many questions that haven't been asked, for me to make a "leap of faith", regardless of the direction that leap takes me. I am prepared to accept any eventuality that comes my way before, during, and after my death with a clean and clear conscience. That's really the best I can do.

What that means is...I have no interest in "proving" anyone "wrong", or trying to sway your beliefs, or trying to convince anyone that my beliefs are somehow better, or more right, or anything like that. I respect everyone's opinion, and I love to read of how and why they have come to believe what they do. It is part of what makes each of us individual. I am only asking questions here, that I have asked myself many times...and usually don't have an answer to, or perhaps only part of one. I am reading in hopes of learning about something I haven't experienced yet, and perhaps finding a new methodology, ideology, or theology that sparks enough of an interest in me to research it further.

 

[tyflier]

I never said Einstein said god I said a higher power an I never met a Christian that prayed for a good breakfast or thought god should watch there toast so your statement is well stupid. this is not suppose to be a who can make a better joke an if it was you would still loose so if your toast burns blame yourself not GOD!

I think it was a metaphor for the manner in which SOME modern Christians approach their relationship with their god. People do pray for material garbage and other stuff all the time.

Your comments are uncalled for...

 

[dr73]

I think it was a metaphor for the manner in which SOME modern Christians approach their relationship with their god. People do pray for material garbage and other stuff all the time.

Your comments are uncalled for...

I respect EVERYONES opinion but asking god ,the devil, or someone other then yourself to watch over there toast IS pretty stupid. If this was an attempt at a metaphor it fell short very short. ( praying to Dog as someone put it is more of an insalt to Christians then me saying his statement was dumb but everyone got a laugh from that. )Some Christians may pray for stupid stuff like wealth or a car or none burnt toast but know where in the bible (or any other book that I know of) says God will bring you these things. It will help with your spiritually in this life an if God is real then it will help for your after life in heaven. I have stated before that I do not go to church or understand the whole bible therefore I don't know everything (or even half) about it. but I have never made fun of God (just in case there is a heaven) an It is a shame that so many people feel it necessary to do so I have not once made fun of the non believers. Sorry if my statements are un called for but I will not take them back or say sorry. I am sure you guys are all great people. Not everything should or has to be seen to be believed .You can not see the wind yet you know it is there. I have not seen GOD yet I know he is there. How is that for a metaphor? I think that is way better then burnt toast!

 

[Snakespeare]

I never said Einstein said god I said a higher power an I never met a Christian that prayed for a good breakfast or thought god should watch there toast so your statement is well stupid. this is not suppose to be a who can make a better joke an if it was you would still loose so if your toast burns blame yourself not GOD!

I simply felt that it was important to distinguish the Judeo-Christian God alluded to in the first part of your comment from the kind of God Einstein might have believed in. The God of Abraham talks to people, raises people from the dead, and gets upset when people eat shrimp cocktail or wear t-shirts made out of polyester and cotton blends. As tyflyer points out, because of the personal nature of this God, the possibility of praying for all sorts of trivial things arises: help in finding lost keys, help in getting to the gas station before the tank is empty, help in improving one's grammar and usage, etc. For Einstein, "religion" involved admiring the order and harmony of the universe, and he felt that science could explain that order and harmony. And when science couldn't explain that order and harmony, it created in him a sense of awe and humility. This makes him about as religious as Richard Dawkins. As many here have pointed out, there is a wide range of possible spiritual experiences that have nothing to do with believing in an anthropomorphic god, or even believing in a higher power. I think the original question asked us to identify ourselves as theists, atheists, or agnostics. Einstein was not a theist, and I doubt he would have even classified himself as an agnostic--he would have objected to the uncertainty of it (in the same way that he objected to Heisenberg). I think he actually calls himself a "religious non-believer" somewhere--and I think he delighted in the oxymoron. He had a great sense of humor.