Is It Even Possible to Reconcile God with Evolution?

[LuisDantas]

[Laughs] Well . . . I don't doubt that, though the same applies to the Bible.

In the opposite direction, you mean?

But there's a fine line between disagreement and ignorance when the faithful to science interpret and can barely tolerate descent. Sound familiar?

"The faithful to science"? Who would those misguided people be?

By "descent" did you mean to say "discordance" or something similar?

In any case, it sounds fantasious, not familiar.

Interestingly, all of my friends and family, with the exception of my mother, are atheists who were taught evolution in school and not one of them believe it any more than they believe in God.

Well, they are not supposed to believe in evolution, but instead to learn of it and of the evidence for it.

After that, "belief" is too misleading a word. It implies uncertainty.

 

[Alceste]

It's an amateurish attempt by an unsophisticated thinker to rationalize her predrawn conclusion that god and evolution are not reconcilable. None of her points logically follow from her arguments, or they are based on exceedingly narrow ideas of what constitutes a god and assumptions about what such a god would necessarily do.

I can't imagine a single rationalist-atheist I know agreeing with her conclusions or not being able to see the article for what it is - a flimsy attempt to support a biased, pre-formed conclusion.

Thanks for the review. Saves me reading it, and pretty much exactly what I expected.

 

[outhouse]

What I dream for is the day that intellectual elitism isn't so widespread.

Is it so widespread?


I thought the worlds biggest problem Is lack of education, ignorance that limits communication between different cultures.

 

[sun rise]

I am familiar with Hindu scriptures and how they are treated which is why I mentioned them and separated them from extremely dogmatic stuff like the Bible or the Qur'an.

I am asserting that a scripture cannot be taken as allegory when they specifically do not intend upon such things. If you are a theists and assert that god wrote such a book (you name it), and that this book is an aid to humanity and provides our history. That book is supposed to be made extremely clear and not be compiled into a sloppy text that is not worthy of being a philosophical manual.

Please explain the allegory in 6 day creation myth. Why was the earth created before the sun when we know that is not the case. This serves no purpose. Why would a god let mankind even think this. Heliocentrism existed for a reason ya know and god did not clarify the orbits

The Bible does not say to take itself literally. The NT says:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

And as far as literal days go

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And of course Quran is very, very different than the Bible and the problem of translation applies. The famous light verse is one example but there are more striking ones:


Khalifa

GOD is the light of the heavens and the earth. The allegory of His light is that of a concave mirror behind a lamp that is placed inside a glass container. The glass container is like a bright, pearl-like star. The fuel thereof is supplied from a blessed oil-producing tree, that is neither eastern, nor western. Its oil is almost self-radiating; needs no fire to ignite it. Light upon light. GOD guides to His light whoever wills (to be guided). GOD thus cites the parables for the people. GOD is fully aware of all things.

Yusuf Ali

God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! God doth guide whom He will to His Light: God doth set forth Parables for men: and God doth know all things.

 

[Riverwolf]

Is it so widespread?


I thought the worlds biggest problem Is lack of education, ignorance that limits communication between different cultures.

Intellectual elitism manifests from the poor state of what little education exists. It basically is the assumption that illiterate people are barbaric savages by default, that parroting of facts is intelligence while being ignorant of certain facts is stupidity, etc.

It causes a lot of people, including myself for a time, to be quite snobby in their knowledge of random factoids. I suspect this snobbery is part of the cause of the resentment that a lot of people feel towards so-called "educated people".

Intellectual elitism is not synonymous with education. It's great to push for more education, but it's bad to regard an illiterate person as automatically barbaric.

 

[outhouse]

Intellectual elitism manifests from the poor state of what little education exists. It basically is the assumption that illiterate people are barbaric savages by default, that parroting of facts is intelligence while being ignorant of certain facts is stupidity, etc.

It causes a lot of people, including myself for a time, to be quite snobby in their knowledge of random factoids. I suspect this snobbery is part of the cause of the resentment that a lot of people feel towards so-called "educated people".

Intellectual elitism is not synonymous with education. It's great to push for more education, but it's bad to regard an illiterate person as automatically barbaric.

I can see how that is a problem.


I don't view illiterate as barbaric, I only judge those who's actions speak for themselves.

I don't think the ignorant are stupid, it is those who start certainties based on ignorance I have issues with.


Most of my life was hard knocks, I have a very limited education myself. My spelling has increased dramatically since I have been here. When I slow down enough.

There is always time to learn if one chooses

 

[Riverwolf]

I can see how that is a problem.


I don't view illiterate as barbaric, I only judge those who's actions speak for themselves.

I don't think the ignorant are stupid, it is those who start certainties based on ignorance I have issues with.


Most of my life was hard knocks, I have a very limited education myself. My spelling has increased dramatically since I have been here. When I slow down enough.

There is always time to learn if one chooses

Well, I wasn't talking about you.

What I speak of isn't as widespread as, say, YEC. But the amount of it that I do see on the internet is concerning to me. It may not be a real problem at this time, and I hope it never becomes one.

 

[ChristineES]

In this article: Why You Can't Reconcile God and Evolution | Alternet, writer Greta Christina makes a pretty good case that the two cannot be reconciled. But as a theist I have to disagree, it is not that I believe in theistic evolution or that God somehow influenced or guided the process of evolution. I don't, I find theistic evolution impossible and contradictory but what I do believe is that God simply let the chips fall were they may and I believe that is the only way you can reconcile God and evolution.

So what thinks you guys?

I think we can reconcile God to almost anything; if people do it (and they do indeed do it) then it can be done. How He did it is what we question since, even if we are very strong in faith, we couldn't answer the question of "how". Some things are beyond even imagination, in my opinion.

 

[Delta-9]

In this article: Why You Can't Reconcile God and Evolution | Alternet, writer Greta Christina makes a pretty good case that the two cannot be reconciled. But as a theist I have to disagree, it is not that I believe in theistic evolution or that God somehow influenced or guided the process of evolution. I don't, I find theistic evolution impossible and contradictory but what I do believe is that God simply let the chips fall were they may and I believe that is the only way you can reconcile God and evolution.

So what thinks you guys?

If your God is deistic, pantheist, or otherwise a non-intervening God I don't see how evolution can be antithetical to your God.

As for evolution having no direction, mutations being random, those are all emergent properties of natural phenomena. To say that those things can't be reconciled with God is to essentially say that science itself, the study of how the natural world works, is antithetical to the belief in God.

I think that is a mistake as it doesn't take into account miracles. For example gravity, we know that things fall to the ground, however I think just about everyone can accept (hypothetically) that a supernatural entity (God) can suspend natural phenomena in precise ways to save someone from being crushed by a falling building. Science will never be able to say God saved someone from being crushed due to its own philosophical limitations, but it doesn't mean gravity is antithetical to the belief in an interventional God.

Maybe I am too ignorant to understand, but I have always found it troubling how scientists and philosophers seem to use the criteria of science itself to gauge whether or not observed natural phenomena (i.e. evolution) are compatible with a broader ontological view that incorporates the supernatural.

 

[Sapiens]

I can see how that is a problem.


I don't view illiterate as barbaric, I only judge those who's actions speak for themselves. ...

Illiterate does not mean barbaric, though barbaric does mean unable to read and speak ancient Greek.

 

[outhouse]

Well, I wasn't talking about you.

What I speak of isn't as widespread as, say, YEC. But the amount of it that I do see on the internet is concerning to me. It may not be a real problem at this time, and I hope it never becomes one.

Im a little hard sometimes so I had to consider how much applied to me

 

[Riverwolf]

Im a little hard sometimes so I had to consider how much applied to me

Self-introspection is only ever a good thing, when the goal is self-improvement. :yes:

They say that people who are most against alcohol are struggling ex-alcoholics. While I don't know the extent to which that analogy is actually true, it applies to me; I'm against intellectual elitism as a concept, because I, myself, was an intellectual elitist for the longest time, and every now and then that snobbery pops up.

 

[Sapiens]

Self-introspection is only ever a good thing, when the goal is self-improvement. :yes:

They say that people who are most against alcohol are struggling ex-alcoholics. While I don't know the extent to which that analogy is actually true, it applies to me; I'm against intellectual elitism as a concept, because I, myself, was an intellectual elitist for the longest time, and every now and then that snobbery pops up.

Since I'm all for intellectual elitism (why not the best?) does that mean that in reality I am a closet stupid?

 

[Riverwolf]

Since I'm all for intellectual elitism (why not the best?) does that mean that in reality I am a closet stupid?

LOL No. I'm quite intelligent.

It just means you're my ENEMY AND WE SHALL FIGHT TO THE DEATH!!! :tribal:

In all seriousness, as far as I'm concerned, intellectual elitism is not really any better than other forms of elitism, and is severely discriminating against those who choose to direct their intelligence to other, more pragmatic matters over knowledge of random factoids. That I'm against intellectual elitism doesn't mean I'm against intelligence.

 

[Sapiens]

... That I'm against intellectual elitism doesn't mean I'm against intelligence.

Then I ask again, "Why not the best?"

 

[Riverwolf]

Then I ask again, "Why not the best?"

Because nobody is the best at everything.

Singling out people simply for having one great trait, and then discriminating against those who don't share that greatness, no matter how great they may be in other areas, is bad.

 

[Sapiens]

Singling out for a single trait was never suggested.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Natural selection is not a "blind" process and it obviously has a purpose - to facilitate the survival of said species.

I might be wrong about this, but I think it was commonly agreed that the survival of said species, or even the survival of said individual, is the purpose of evolution, that evolution has no purpose, it simply just is. The reason it seems to lean that way is because, well, those who do not worry about those things will not spread on tradition, or perhaps a hypothetical gene that would cause disinterest on them. The lifestyle of procreation and survival simply passes by more than the lifestyle of carelessness for obvious reasons.

 

[Riverwolf]

Singling out for a single trait was never suggested.

Then don't call it elitism.

 

[Sapiens]

Why not?