My username is ngupta and I approve this message.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is not atheistic
- Thread starter Draka
- Start date
My username is ngupta and I approve this message.
Draka
Wonder Woman
No, it really doesn't.
The theory of evolution makes claims about everything that is incompatible with the theory of evolution.
"'A' is true" implies "everything that says 'A' is false is false itself."
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
This is indeed correct.
For instance, the whole concept of the Biblical Adam and Eve falls as anything but a methaphor if one is to accept the Theory of Evolution.
ToE does not, however, make any statements about gods in general, but any god/creation myth that contradicts Evolution would, from the perspective of ToE, be considered faulty.
Draka
Wonder Woman
The ToE is an explanation of facts in evidence. It deals with reality. To say that evolution is against god is to say that reality is against god. One can perceive that something does not mesh with their idea of god, but if that thing is reality then it is their concept of god that is against reality. Not the other way around.
I don't see your point. Both ways of describing it are equivalent: a conflict exists.
We're talking about ideas here, not intentional entities.
For some reason science is a faith shaker no matter what field it is. Theological concepts either have to adapt to the newest knowledge or die out. Some religions haven't had issues while others are up at arms because of science showing knowledge that goes against the literal texts.
Buddhism never really had an issue and the current Dali Lama is even acquainted with quantum physics and is able to make religion and science compatible.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Quantum physics is easily embraced by woo peddlers, perhaps more so than any other science. The line between the Dali Lama embracing quantum physics and Deepak Chopra peddling his quantum woo may be finer than you think.
wa:do
wa:do
work in progress
Well-Known Member
They don't embrace it, they just misuse and misapply it....like Chopra's mumble jumble about our thoughts being eternal, and a "law of attraction". Some physicists who have commented on his work don't consider it embracing quantum mechanics.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
Or, they dig in and hide in their bunkers and declare that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago. It's in Conservapedia, so it must be true!
I'm still wary of someone who has to be addressed:"His Holiness". Nevertheless, it seems that the Dalai Lama's greatest insight has been to speak in terms that Western, especially Buddhist practicioners relate to. And he may have a good model for how to keep religion relevant in modern times.
To this point, I am an Atheistic Agnostic that has problems with evolution theory.
I know where the Dali Lama wasn't exactly agreeing with the interpretation and it is where a spiritualist in general have issue but it does not change the compatibility. Buddhism is about learning and if they have to revise their interpretation they will according to what whatever new knowledge comes forth. There will be a day when we get a proper grasp of quantum mechanics so we will have to wait to see how it plays out.
It is important these days that we take what we learn and apply sound philosophy. The Dali Lama wrote a book directly addressing science vs religion and he does a great job of bringing them together "Universe in a Single Atom". Also "The Tao of Physics" (don't remember the author), is a very decent read.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
To this point, I am an Atheistic Agnostic that has problems with evolution theory.
Personally, I've never encountered anyone whose problems with evolutionary theory weren't actually their problems with their misunderstanding or lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
But of Course.
Indeed. It is rather hard to have a problem with when one has a solid understanding of it.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
The same thing can be said about evolution and genetics and how it relates to woo.
Never the less Deepak and his ilk will claim to fully support science.
Which is my point... claiming to accept/embrace science and understanding/not misrepresenting are very different.
Acceptance isn't enough... understanding is what we really need.
wa:do
Curious as to what is the most recent book you read concerning evolutionary theory or recent magazine. I spent a couple months last year catching up and Read a book copyrighted 2010. Scientific stuff not religious because I like to be current.