Evolution & Heaven?

[Jimmy]

Can heaven and evolution coexist? What does that look like? Big Bang then evolution then heaven where we are reunited with our loved ones in another realm? What does heaven look like for the modern Christian who also believes evolution took place? After all the church only accepted evolution in 1950. The church claims it accepts evolution but yet every church in the world still talks about heaven? I’m confused haha

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can heaven and evolution coexist? What does that look like? Big Bang then evolution then heaven where we are reunited with our loved ones in another realm? What does heaven look like for the modern Christian who also believes evolution took place? After all the church only accepted evolution in 1950. The church claims it accepts evolution but yet every church in the world still talks about heaven? I’m confused haha

Yeah, that is on you. I can't help you with that one. You have to do that yourself, as I can't think for you in the end.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What church specifically accepted in '50?
And what's so hard about a divine creation billions of years ago with some degree of guidance in evolution? That's what many Christians believe and it doesn't seem an issie for them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What church specifically accepted in '50?
And what's so hard about a divine creation billions of years ago with some degree of guidance in evolution? That's what many Christians believe and it doesn't seem an issie for them.

Yeah, as in effect an UUA believer I don't get.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, as in effect an UUA believer I don't get.

I wouldn't have a problem accepting such a position, and certainly more congruent with reality if we find the universe is teeming with life than any views like a Young Earth Creation.

 

[Jimmy]

What church specifically accepted in '50?
And what's so hard about a divine creation billions of years ago with some degree of guidance in evolution? That's what many Christians believe and it doesn't seem an issie for them.

Heaven and evolution? Come on!

 

[Jimmy]

Yeah, as in effect an UUA believer I don't get.

Divine creation billions of years ago? Of what? Empty space?

 

[Jimmy]

Yeah, as in effect an UUA believer I don't get.

Sometimes spiritual things lack reason.

 

[Jimmy]

I wouldn't have a problem accepting such a position, and certainly more congruent with reality if we find the universe is teeming with life than any views like a Young Earth Creation.

How come young earth is cooky but yet talking to spirits isnt?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sometimes spiritual things lack reason.

Yeah, but we still do it differently.

Divine creation billions of years ago? Of what? Empty space?

Here is my way of doing. If I could answer everything, I would be God. I can't answer everything, so I don't try. If there is a God, then that is what God can do, not me.
I live in this world and I try to understand that as me. I don't claim to be able to understand God.

 

[Jimmy]

Yeah, but we still do it differently.


Here is my way of doing. If I could answer everything, I would be God. I can't answer everything, so I don't try. If there is a God, then that is what God can do, not me.
I live in this world and I try to understand that as me. I don't claim to be able to understand God.

Understanding god is breathtaking

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Understanding god is breathtaking

Well, I don't. So I don't even try. To understand another being with a mind, you need a theory/model of the other mind. I don't have that, because to me, to understand God I would have to have God's mind.

 

[Jimmy]

Well, I don't. So I don't even try. To understand another being with a mind, you need a theory/model of the other mind. I don't have that, because to me, to understand God I would have to have God's mind.

I don’t need a theory/model. What I do need is an imagination

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t need a theory/model. What I do need is an imagination

Yeah and other people have a different imagination. That is the problem.

 

[Jimmy]

Yeah and other people have a different imagination. That is the problem.

Not a problem. It’s a beautiful thing

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not a problem. It’s a beautiful thing

And horrible to others as you do it. Because your beautiful is their horrible and so in reverse.

 

[Ella S.]

Technically, the Theory of Evolution explains biodiversity and does not address the question of an afterlife. Many scientists, in an effort to promote scientific literacy among the religious, will stop there.

Think about this rationally for a moment, though. The concept of Heaven hinges on the notion that some part of us, call it a soul, continues after our deaths. Usually this soul is something special to humans that is imbued in us at birth.

Evolution shows that there is not a clear line between what is and is not human, so there probably could not be a clear line between what does and does not have a soul. We can't point to when the first humans were born.

In fact, evolution seems to be at odds with the idea that there is something special that humans have, like a soul, which all other animals do not. Everything that separates humans from other species is explainable through evolution, so there is nothing left to attribute to the supernatural.

In that sense, no, I don't think it's very coherent to believe in both Heaven and evolution. Actually, I don't think it's very coherent to believe in any form of afterlife when we take both abiogenesis and evolution into account, because they leave virtually no room for a soul to appear when life is being formed.

You could insist that a soul does exist in some unfalsifiable sense and that it does not interact with matter at all and cannot be observed. I think this is a view that's popular among more educated believers. I would argue that even an unfalsifiable belief in the soul directly contradicts the conclusions we must draw given the evidence. Thus, evolution shows us that Heaven does not exist, pending any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jimmy]

And horrible to others as you do it. Because your beautiful is their horrible and so in reverse.

If it’s negative yup

 

[Jimmy]

Technically, the Theory of Evolution explains biodiversity and does not address the question of an afterlife. Many scientists, in an effort to promote scientific literacy among the religious, will stop there.

Think about this rationally for a moment, though. The concept of Heaven hinges on the notion that some part of us, call it a soul, continues after our deaths. Usually this soul is something special to humans that is imbued in us at birth.

Evolution shows that there is not a clear line between what is and is not human, so there probably could not be a clear line between what does and does not have a soul. We can't point to when the first humans were born.

In fact, evolution seems to be at odds with the idea that there is something special that humans have, like a soul, which all other animals do not. Everything that separates humans from other species is explainable through evolution, so there is nothing left to attribute to the supernatural.

In that sense, no, I don't think it's very coherent to believe in both Heaven and evolution. Actually, I don't think it's very coherent to believe in any form of afterlife when we take both abiogenesis and evolution into account, because they leave virtually no room for a soul to appear when life is being formed.

You could insist that a soul does exist in some unfalsifiable sense and that it does not interact with matter at all and cannot be observed. I think this is a view that's popular among more educated believers. I would argue that even an unfalsifiable belief in the soul directly contradicts the conclusions we must draw given the evidence. Thus, evolution shows us that Heaven does not exist, pending any evidence to the contrary.

I don’t believe in other realms

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Technically, the Theory of Evolution explains biodiversity and does not address the question of an afterlife. Many scientists, in an effort to promote scientific literacy among the religious, will stop there.

Think about this rationally for a moment, though. The concept of Heaven hinges on the notion that some part of us, call it a soul, continues after our deaths. Usually this soul is something special to humans that is imbued in us at birth.

Evolution shows that there is not a clear line between what is and is not human, so there probably could not be a clear line between what does and does not have a soul. We can't point to when the first humans were born.

In fact, evolution seems to be at odds with the idea that there is something special that humans have, like a soul, which all other animals do not. Everything that separates humans from other species is explainable through evolution, so there is nothing left to attribute to the supernatural.

In that sense, no, I don't think it's very coherent to believe in both Heaven and evolution. Actually, I don't think it's very coherent to believe in any form of afterlife when we take both abiogenesis and evolution into account, because they leave virtually no room for a soul to appear when life is being formed.

You could insist that a soul does exist in some unfalsifiable sense and that it does not interact with matter at all and cannot be observed. I think this is a view that's popular among more educated believers. I would argue that even an unfalsifiable belief in the soul directly contradicts the conclusions we must draw given the evidence. Thus, evolution shows us that Heaven does not exist, pending any evidence to the contrary.

Well, we have been here before. It is the difference between methodological naturalism as a set of axioms and philosophical naturalism as true with evidence.
So if you actually can do philosophical naturalism, do it.
You would be the first one in recorded history to pull it off.