Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

[dianaiad]

Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God. This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life. Yet, many religious people (including many priests) fully accept evolution while still holding a strong belief in God.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

Nope.

In fact, discovering how evolution works prompted a bit of joy in me. As in...so THAT'S how He did it!

I don't have any problems with what people discover using the scientific method, at all. I don't believe in a 'god of the gaps.' I believe in a God Who would like nothing better than that we figure out how things work.

 

[Axe Elf]

I believe in a God Who would like nothing better than that we figure out how things work.

Yep; God is manifest and evident in His creation:

"For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]," --Romans 1:20 (Amplified Bible)

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I remained a Christian for quite some time after exposure to the sciences. Evolution was not an immediate game changer for me.

Interesting. What was the game changer then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. What was the game changer then?

Examining the claims of Christianity. The story does not hold up to inspection.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Examining the claims of Christianity. The story does not hold up to inspection.

True. Which claims specifically did you find the most problematic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

True. Which claims specifically did you find the most problematic?

Hard to say, but the concept that the God of the Bible is a loving god, but then that same for would condemn countless people only for the reason they were born in an area that had a different religion seemed quite contradictory.

 

[Axe Elf]

Hard to say, but the concept that the God of the Bible is a loving god, but then that same for would condemn countless people only for the reason they were born in an area that had a different religion seemed quite contradictory.

I don't think that's a problem.

"And I have other sheep [beside these] that are not of this fold. I must bring and impel those also; and they will listen to My voice and heed My call, and so there will be [they will become] one flock under one Shepherd." --Jesus (John 10:16, Amplified Bible)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that's a problem.

"And I have other sheep [beside these] that are not of this fold. I must bring and impel those also; and they will listen to My voice and heed My call, and so there will be [they will become] one flock under one Shepherd." --Jesus (John 10:16, Amplified Bible)

That is just one of the many problems with the religion. And of course one of the problems is the vague nature of the Bible that allows for countless different sects and cults.

 

[Estro Felino]

The question is about the compatibility of scientific evolution with religious beliefs, and I find them compatible because I see God as being ultimately responsible for all "naturalistic" processes.

Yes, but you can't deny that your belief includes a sort of ID...which btw is not what Darwinism says. Random genetic mutations difficultly can be compatible with a sort of perfect infallible supervisor.

 

[Axe Elf]

That is just one of the many problems with the religion. And of course one of the problems is the vague nature of the Bible that allows for countless different sects and cults.

You see that as a problem; I see it as a strength. Not everyone understands things in the same way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see that as a problem; I see it as a strength. Not everyone understands things in the same way.

It is clearly a weakness. A book that can be reinterpreted to suit one's whim is not a pathway to the truth.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes, but you can't deny that your belief includes a sort of ID...which btw is not what Darwinism says. Random genetic mutations difficultly can be compatible with a sort of perfect infallible supervisor.

I can't make any sense of that last sentence, so I'll just reply to the first.

I suppose you could say there's an element of ID in my beliefs--but only in that I believe that there is a Creator. Saying that I am a proponent of ID really kind of raises my hackles, because I don't see myself as being in the same camp that says things like, "An eye is too complex to have arisen by chance," or, "Evolution expects us to believe that a jet airliner could be assembled by a tornado whipping through a junkyard." I fully understand how complex structures and organisms could have developed without a God--I just think He's there anyway. I don't dispute ANY scientific findings or interpretations (since science can't say anything about the existence of the Creator), nor do I adhere to any of the nonsense that is normally associated with the "competing" theory of Intelligent Design. I expressly disavow ID in every way, other than that I do believe that there is a God who uses evolution as one mechanism of creation.

So I would prefer that you say that I believe in a Creator behind everything that science can discover, because I will accept all the baggage that goes along with faith in the supernatural, rather than saying that I believe in ID, which carries an awful lot of baggage as a "science denier" that I do NOT accept. I just believe that reality consists of the natural AND the supernatural, but I would never deny science's ability to understand the natural part of it.

 

[Axe Elf]

It is clearly a weakness. A book that can be reinterpreted to suit one's whim is not a pathway to the truth.

I guess that depends on how you define "truth" and how you go about seeking it. I mean, it's not like you can make the Bible say ANYTHING you want, but around its central themes, there are many ways of understanding it. Some people just need rules to follow, and if all you can do is follow rules, the Bible provides them. If you can conduct yourself by way of higher principles, such as loving God and loving each other, then you can understand the Bible at that level. And then there's some pretty deep and abstract stuff that speaks to people with the capacity for THAT kind of understanding, as well.

So as a book of spiritual truth, its "vagueness" does a great job of speaking those truths to seekers of all cultures, religious persuasions and intellectual capacities. When people try to restrict its message to one particular interpretation, then you get a denomination, which obviously reaches only a sliver of all those to whom the Bible is intended to speak.

 

[Estro Felino]

I can't make any sense of that last sentence, so I'll just reply to the first.

I suppose you could say there's an element of ID in my beliefs--but only in that I believe that there is a Creator. Saying that I am a proponent of ID really kind of raises my hackles, because I don't see myself as being in the same camp that says things like, "An eye is too complex to have arisen by chance," or, "Evolution expects us to believe that a jet airliner could be assembled by a tornado whipping through a junkyard." I fully understand how complex structures and organisms could have developed without a God--I just think He's there anyway. I don't dispute ANY scientific findings or interpretations (since science can't say anything about the existence of the Creator), nor do I adhere to any of the nonsense that is normally associated with the "competing" theory of Intelligent Design. I expressly disavow ID in every way, other than that I do believe that there is a God who uses evolution as one mechanism of creation.

So I would prefer that you say that I believe in a Creator behind everything that science can discover, because I will accept all the baggage that goes along with faith in the supernatural, rather than saying that I believe in ID, which carries an awful lot of baggage as a "science denier" that I do NOT accept. I just believe that reality consists of the natural AND the supernatural, but I would never deny science's ability to understand the natural part of it.

I understand you perfectly, but I think that clarifying your vision of God would help you figure out the border line between ID and Evolution.

For example: do I believe that God , one fine day, deliberately decided to transform mice into bats? No, I don't....
The idea that bats or any other animal were designed in advance sounds absurd to me.

 

[Axe Elf]

I understand you perfectly, but I think that clarifying your vision of God would help you figure out the border line between ID and Evolution.

For example: do I believe that God , one fine day, deliberately decided to transform mice into bats? No, I don't....
The idea that bats or any other animal were designed in advance sounds absurd to me.

Well, He didn't decide "one day" to change stuff; everything that ever happens was determined at the moment of creation. There's no need for any further creation once the fabric of spacetime was created; evolution is an integral part of that fabric.

As for "clarifying my vision of God," I don't think that I can or I should go beyond what can be proven from the five basic axioms that I have chosen to accept as a starting point for formal reasoning about God. They are:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omniscient.
4. God is omnipresent.
5. God is omnibenevolent.

Whatever I can prove from that, I will accept, and whatever I can't, I'm not sure that I should just assume. I don't think that I can ever conceive of God in His entirety anyway, so I don't want to assume any more than is necessary.

So my vision of God is already about as clear as I feel justified in making it--and I've already "figured out" the borderline between ID and evolution, which seems pretty clear to me. Evolution is science in action; ID is very poor science, to the extent that it can be considered science at all, and I would be embarrassed to identify with the ID camp.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Nope.

In fact, discovering how evolution works prompted a bit of joy in me. As in...so THAT'S how He did it!

I don't have any problems with what people discover using the scientific method, at all. I don't believe in a 'god of the gaps.' I believe in a God Who would like nothing better than that we figure out how things work.

Even if God exists, evolution would have nothing to do with God "doing" anything. Natural selection is an entirely blind and naturalistic process that by definition works in the absence of any "intelligent" selecting agent.

 

[bubbleguppy]

I mean to me, I feel like I can easily hold my spiritual and religious beliefs while also "believing" in the facts of evolution and whatnot. Of course this may be due to the fact that I'm more of an agnostic theist if anything, and I don't follow organized religion. Science comes first, but I don't see a reason I need to give up the hope that deities may exist because of that.

 

[blü 2]

it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life.

I was already at least an agnostic by the time I came to understand the sheer explanatory power of evolution.

At the same time I came to understand why the Argument from Design had seemed so powerful to intelligent people in the past, and hand in glove with that, why Darwin's book so disturbed the course of religion, not least and most immediately in England.

Perhaps more to the point, back in 2008 the Anglican church apologized 'to Darwin' for their initial rejection of the theory he propounded.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Evolution wasn't a huge determining factor in coming to reject belief in God. I can't say it wasn't one of the factors - as it may have played a small part somewhere. The majority of what I consider proof against there being a god has more to do with not only the complete lack of evidence, but also a complete lack of emotional connection with any god concept on my part (even one I might devise myself). They simply all "ring false" to me. My intuition informs me that "god" is a farce.

 

[Apologes]

Only reason why you may reject theism once you've learned about evolution is if the only reason you held on to it in the first place was to merely explain the complexity of life.