If you believe in God AND evolution, why do you believe in God?

[metis]

Be brave--and support your belief in God with reason, if possible, please. That is if you believe in evolution as well as in God.

I tend to think defining "God" would be presumptuous, so I'm quite satisfied with my old signature statement: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that".

 

[Quintessence]

It's sad because few here who are members of a religion and believe in evolution without question or doubt say why they also believe in God.

To be fair, it wasn't really clear from the opening post that this is what you were looking for. Especially since those who accept biological evolution are generally going to understand that science isn ot something that is accepted "without question." The entire nature of the sciences as a discipline is to constantly ask more questions and consider the limitations of your own knowledge. That's the case for some religions as well where ideas and practices are subject to revision and change over time.

Oh? So you believe evolution is a god?

It would be more accurate to say that I believe that gods are that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. I follow this baseline definition of what the gods are because it is culturally neutral and flexible enough to accommodate all gods throughout human history. I also believe that each person gets to (and has the responsibility of) deciding for themselves what they deem worthy of worship, and why. When I took up this responsibility, my life experiences and particularly my background in the sciences led to the conclusion that all things are worthy of worship - the theological details are probably beyond the scope of this thread. Just as our Pagan ancestors, all the bits of reality and forces around us are gods for me. That is going to include the Spirit of Biological Evolution, or even the Spirit of Change more broadly. Though honestly, I mostly worship Moon whose aspects include change, not change or evolution directly. I could if I wanted to though. Polytheism is flexible like that.

 

[Coder]

A process that take billions of years is any different than an instantaneous creation of humans? All time and space are in God's creation. People speak of pre-existence of Jesus. Before God formed us in the womb He knew us? Correct? That's pre-existence. An example of how evolution has no bearing on our understanding that we are creatures of God.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you know which of the 'gods' you believe are existing made evolution?

To add, yes and no and maybe. "No" in the sense that there are very significant limits on human knowledge and I'm not going to pretend to grasp or understand the entire universe and all reality, or even really much of it at all. "Maybe" in the sense that I can identify what aspects of reality are most directly pertinent to biological evolution especially since I'm a life scientist who is better educated about these matters than most. "Yes" in the sense that I find all reality (and thus the gods) to be interconnected and interdependent which more or less means everyone and everything "made" these processes that happen. But that's an odd way of putting it - it's not like there's some external "maker" or "creator" separate from "creation" or something in my religious theology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How can one not believe in a Creator? Atheism is the most irrational of worldviews.

As to your first question - what do you think 'theistic evolution' means?

Atheism isn't a worldview.

 

[Tamino]

Why do I " believe in" my Goddesses and Gods?
That is entirely based on my personal experience. I have experienced reality in a way that makes me assume the existence of multiple forms of divinity and spirit in this world.
I cannot prove this with scientific method, and I do not try it. It's just my personal reality, I don't claim that it needs to be everyone's reality nor can I claim to understand absolute truth any better than other humans.
Further, I choose to visualize and address this divinity in the guise of the Egyptian Pantheon and using Egyptian concepts. This is for personal and pragmatic reasons: this religious practice is effective for me and fits with my personal spiritual experiences. It helps me organize my life and my understanding of the world and gives me a plausible framework for all phenomena I observe in nature.

Why do I "believe in" evolution?
I don't. It's not a matter of belief, it is a scientific theory. I confirm that based on our current scientific and measurable understanding of the world, evolution is by far the most plausible explanation for development of life on earth.

Evolution, as scientific theory in its current form, doesn't contradict any of my religious concepts. Quite the opposite.

I see deities as manifestations of natural laws and powers, not as transcendent demiurges. I think they have the power to put a thumb on the scale sometimes, and bend things in the one or the other direction... But they have neither the power nor the intent to guide every single atom according to one unified will and plan. They don't control the universe: they are the universe.

Some examples:
- evolution suggests that all life comes from a common ancestor and shares a fundamental common nature.
- evolution sees humans not a the culmination of an teleological development, but rather a chance variation springing from a messy system
- evolution doesn't measure the value or rank of a species by its brain size or its usefulness to man
- evolution shows that wonderful diversity can spring from a few basic principles
- evolution demonstrates how contradictory forces can combine to create a complex and balanced ecosystem

If I look at all of those points from the perspective of my polytheistic and animistic religion, I can only say: I agree. That fits perfectly into my spirituality.

So yes, I assume that gods and goddesses exist, and I also think that evolution is a splendid, useful and exceptionally well-supported scientific theory.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

How can one not believe in a Creator? Atheism is the most irrational of worldviews.

Describing atheism as irrational seems extreme in my view.

Assuming a creator doesn't really solve the problem of understanding the origins of existence and reality, does it. Assigning a creator beggs the question from whence comes the creator, and honestly we would have to open that up to creators, plural, since it is equally plausible to assume more than one.

If one accepts the current model of evolution as probable, it provides a robust mechanism that does not require a creator or operator to produce the variety of life we see today and throughout the historical record.

Is it really irrational to be skeptical or at least not wholly convinced of the existence of creator entities? We seem to be able to explain a lot of the world and cosmos without them, right?

 

[Quintessence]

If I look at all of those points from the perspective of my polytheistic and animistic religion, I can only say: I agree. That fits perfectly into my spirituality.

This is something I've found as well. And really, one of the reasons why biological evolution was not well-received by certain religions is that they are anthropocentric and put humans on a pedestal. It is, to some, very controversial to suggest all living things (and worse, all non-living things) are sacred and have value.

 

[Coder]

Describing atheism as irrational seems extreme in my view.

Perhaps, (I accept science of course) but a bit of pushback on some of the extremism of science idolatry may serve a purpose.

the problem of understanding the origins

No origins. God transcends time and space. Time and space are our sandbox. So the concepts of cause and origin don't even exist at the transcendent level.

 

[Coder]

This is something I've found as well.

If I look at all of those points from the perspective of my polytheistic and animistic religion...

I believe in God. You may find interesting:

Jesus Not Osiris - Right Track - Wrong Idea - It's Sacrifice and Meal

I believe: You may hear some mythicist historians compare Jesus to Osiris. Such "gods" may be partially involved, but that's not it. One must understand that the theology was an outgrowth, a natural consequence of some substitutions that were the seeds. What seeded the theology? Mainly the...

www.religiousforums.com

Freedom of religion, of course! However, the falsities of literal interpretation of Christian symbolism needn't be cause for rejection of monotheism. (Unfortunately, that may be the case for some.)

 

[Kathryn]

I believe in some form of evolution and I also believe in God. God has never been disproven to me, and I believe He has greatly enriched my life.

 

[Spice]

Describing atheism as irrational seems extreme in my view.

Assuming a creator doesn't really solve the problem of understanding the origins of existence and reality, does it. Assigning a creator beggs the question from whence comes the creator, and honestly we would have to open that up to creators, plural, since it is equally plausible to assume more than one.

If one accepts the current model of evolution as probable, it provides a robust mechanism that does not require a creator or operator to produce the variety of life we see today and throughout the historical record.

Is it really irrational to be skeptical or at least not wholly convinced of the existence of creator entities? We seem to be able to explain a lot of the world and cosmos without them, right?

But not the finite, infinite beginning. That Mystery is often called God.

 

[idea]

I tend to think defining "God" would be presumptuous, so I'm quite satisfied with my old signature statement: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that".

We all define God, choose our church/beliefs to find whatever comforts and justifies what we want.

For me, it's connecting. Whatever connects I see as being worthy of study and appreciation.

 

[Quintessence]

I believe in God. You may find interesting:

Jesus Not Osiris - Right Track - Wrong Idea - It's Sacrifice and Meal

I believe: You may hear some mythicist historians compare Jesus to Osiris. Such "gods" may be partially involved, but that's not it. One must understand that the theology was an outgrowth, a natural consequence of some substitutions that were the seeds. What seeded the theology? Mainly the...

www.religiousforums.com

Freedom of religion, of course! However, the falsities of literal interpretation of Christian symbolism needn't be cause for rejection of monotheism. (Unfortunately, that may be the case for some.)

I'm not clear on what any of this has to do with the thread so I'm not going to go into why this response doesn't make sense here. Are you proselytizing? You seem to be assuming that we shouldn't be anything other than monotheists.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Perhaps, (I accept science of course) but a bit of pushback on some of the extremism of science idolatry may serve a purpose.

It seems we are in agreement then that an atheistic position isn't inherently irrational.

As to your reference to "science idolatry", I must confess I do not know what that is. If you are simply saying, in a tongue-in-cheek way, that we must hold scientific inquiry to rigorous standards and take to heart its limitations at the boundaries of our abilities to investigate, then I quite agree.

No origins. God transcends time space. Time and space are just our kiddie sandbox. So the concept of cause and origin don't even exist at the transcendent level.

You seem quite confident in this statement. I'm sure you have a strong scientific foundation to support it, given your acceptance of science as you have stated above.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

But not the finite, infinite beginning. That Mystery is often called God.

Yes, many do. Others have different descriptions. Given that it is a "mystery", or unknown, it seems they are all simply speculating, yes?

 

[YoursTrue]

I tend to think defining "God" would be presumptuous, so I'm quite satisfied with my old signature statement: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that".

Here's the problem as I see it that way, and I'll pretend I'm reading your words in a book you wrote but now I can ask you questions. Does the one who caused life and the universe--does that one have a personality? Feelings? (I'll leave it at that for now.) Thank you for your answer, much appreciated.

 

[Spice]

Yes, many do. Others have different descriptions. Given that it is a "mystery", or unknown, it seems they are all simply speculating, yes?

Not speculating necessarily on the mystery, but giving a name to the mystery, and then perhaps speculating on that element's connection to the known. That's a fuzzy, dotted line.

Though, yes, some do try to put the Mystery in a box of their own design. Mainly organized religions.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Not speculating necessarily on the mystery, but giving a name to the mystery, and then perhaps speculating on that element's connection to the known. That's a fuzzy, dotted line.

Though, yes, some do try to put the Mystery in a box of their own design. Mainly organized religions.

Indeed. Well, I suppose in the later case, there is no mystery. Not necessarily a box of their own design, but one that they have been inculcated in, in regards to organized, long-standing religions.

 

[YoursTrue]

But not the finite, infinite beginning. That Mystery is often called God.

So then the question remains -- do you think this Mystery often called God has a personality?