Do evolution and bigbang always have to be in conflict with religion/spirituality/Philosophies?

[atanu]

In my opinion, NO. Spirituality and science do not clash, except in people's minds.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's always aesthetic appreciation and emotional resonance, for one, though on the whole, I'm not a big fan of creation mythos. Like @LuisDantas , I find stories about origins of the universe and/or life to be unimportant. Not my genre, so to speak, though there are bits here and there that I enjoy and the comparative contexts can be interesting too.

I'm partial to Hellenic mythos. When I learned about the tales about successive ages of humans, I found that a fascinating approach to the mythos. There's a lot of wisdom to be mined from that tale. One of the important lessons I see in tales like that is to understand that nothing lasts forever. It also makes one ask questions like "what if human nature was fundamentally different than it is now, and what might that look like?" The tales of humans being created are also interesting. I always like creation stories that speak of us coming from the soil - it teaches the lesson of how connected we are to the earth or our planet. That Lady Athene breathed life into that earthen figure is a statement about human wisdom - that we have that within us.

Interesting way to dodge the question.

You know, other arts. When you took various literature classes, did all the stories you learned about fail to make sense to you because they didn't "really" happen? When you were learning about painting, did all that fail to make sense to you because paintings aren't "really" the thing they represent? Maybe think about the last time you went to a movie. Did the movie not make sense to you and did you find it meaningless because it didn't "really" happen? Do you not patronize the arts in any way because they are meaningless and confusing?

Typically, creation myths are used to communicate the significance of a people (or humanity as a whole) by appealing to their origins. "You were created by God for great things" is not equivalent to "hypothetically, if God had created you this way, you would have been created for great things."

 

[Sapiens]

Uhm... hello?

Living religions are perfectly capable of this, because they're not dependent on anything set in stone.

Capable of this, but, in my experience, rarely (if ever) competent at actually doing so.

 

[Riverwolf]

Capable of this, but, in my experience, rarely (if ever) competent at actually doing so.

Definitely happens.

I can do it just fine, and I've seen others do it just fine.

 

[Jumi]

Does science conflict with religion necessarily? No. But even today I read the claim science has lied on here, so for some it does conflict strongly.

In my opinion it's always fine to disagree with science, as long as you're not claiming your view is "more scientific" than science to keep it clean. I pretty much have no beliefs about the BB and have never been able to understand the reasoning behind it. I just accept that it's got the weight of evidence and top minds of theoretical physics backing it. I'm sure reasoning satisfactory to me isn't accessible to a layman such as myself that would be worth my effort. It's more important to me that we're here now.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In response to the OP...no. Definitely not. They CAN, of course, but it all depends on the flavour.

 

[Quintessence]

Interesting way to dodge the question.

How in the blazes was that response dodging the question? I gave multiple examples of how I find elements of Greek creation tales meaningful without taking them literally (i.e., Athene breathing life into humans as being symbolic of our wisdom). I gave you exactly what you asked for.

Typically, creation myths are used to communicate the significance of a people (or humanity as a whole) by appealing to their origins. "You were created by God for great things" is not equivalent to "hypothetically, if God had created you this way, you would have been created for great things."

Huh? How does this address anything I asked? Speaking of dodging questions...

Also, non-literal approaches to the arts =/= treating everything as hypothetical.

 

[Sapiens]

Definitely happens.

I can do it just fine, and I've seen others do it just fine.

You are somewhat unique. If I was in need of a belief system I suspect that I'd join you.

 

[Quintessence]

Capable of this, but, in my experience, rarely (if ever) competent at actually doing so.

If religions never change, how do you explain the existence of tens of thousands of religious traditions across the globe and throughout history? Something that fossilizes cannot change. So how do new traditions arise if religions cannot change?

 

[Sapiens]

If religions never change, how do you explain the existence of tens of thousands of religious traditions across the globe and throughout history? Something that fossilizes cannot change. So how do new traditions arise if religions cannot change?

It is kind of like evolution, the "parent" organism remains the same as does that "child" yet there are differences between them.

 

[Thief]

Does science conflict with religion necessarily? No. But even today I read the claim science has lied on here, so for some it does conflict strongly.

if you are referring to me......

going back to the singularity......something had to move it
science has lied if substance can have it's own volition

Spirit first

 

[Father Heathen]

And I don't understand why they're taken non-literally.

Unless they were just intended to be a parable or fable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How in the blazes was that response dodging the question? I gave multiple examples of how I find elements of Greek creation tales meaningful without taking them literally (i.e., Athene breathing life into humans as being symbolic of our wisdom). I gave you exactly what you asked for.

I think you have a different take on "meaningful" than I do. How does a story that says, effectively, "Athena didn't actually breath life into you, but here's a story that pretends you did" express human wisdom?

Huh? How does this address anything I asked? Speaking of dodging questions...

I spoke to what was relevant in your post and ignored your attempt to lead the discussion down a rabbit hole.

Also, non-literal approaches to the arts =/= treating everything as hypothetical.

You keep on over-reaching. I'm not talking about "the arts" in general; I'm talking about creation myths. Please stick to the topic at hand. And one specific example is not "everything".

 

[Jumi]

going back to the singularity......something had to move it

If singularity existed.

science has lied if substance can have it's own volition

Spirit first

Here's the problem. Science has never found spirit. If you've never found a coin from ancient Greece in your yard would it be lying to say you haven't found such there?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In my opinion, there are some beliefs, cultural beliefs and practices that are in tune with science.
Religion always isn't anti science.

In my case, religion and science have been like lovers, who cannot live without each other and have never had a reason to quarrel.

But they can be vaguely matched with some stories. Such as the Dashavatara.

Stories are interesting. I can never have enough of them.

science has lied if substance can have it's own volition.

substance/energy has its own properties.

 

[Desert Snake]

In my opinion, there are some beliefs, cultural beliefs and practices that are in tune with science.
Religion always isn't anti science.

Many if not most religious people on the forums seem to support the big bang theory. Many claiming to be Christians, also support evolution theory

 

[Thief]

If singularity existed.


Here's the problem. Science has never found spirit. If you've never found a coin from ancient Greece in your yard would it be lying to say you haven't found such there?

there will be no photo, no equation, no fingerprint or repeatable experiment.
no proof

if you find a coin on a table....someone put it there.
if the coin is spinning on edge....someone is nearby.

there's a lot of rotation in this universe.
once an object is set in motion it tends to continue....
but something ( Someone) had to be there to give that 'push'

 

[Thief]

substance/energy has its own properties.

'self starting'....is not one of them

 

[Aupmanyav]

'self starting'....is not one of them

Very much self-starting and self-sustaining. Read my post here: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...s-future-of-the-universe.187181/#post-4744158

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know, you mean this, no?