Is It Even Possible to Reconcile God with Evolution?

[Sha'irullah]

There's been many Jewish scribes pointing out that the Torah is not to be taken literal, but allegorical. For instance, look into Philo from Alexandria for instance (first century Jewish scholar and philosopher), who's writing was saved from destruction by Rome solely because of the early Christians. Did they know something we don't?


Where in the Lord of the Rings does it say that it's just fiction? Therefore, LotR must be historical and must be sincerely considered to be such and can't be used to learn anything about human nature or anything else?

When did Tolkien ever claim it was real? The intent behind the Lord of the Rings is obvious, it is implied knowledge.
The Bible and religious texts in general are also implied knowledge and the usual implication is anything but fiction although there are exceptions and this only applies to Dharmic religions and some pagan cults.

I am very familiar with the Jewish scribes you speak of, Jewish reformation was a major thing and Maimonides were well known contributors.

Only if God was interested in us knowing. Maybe God isn't at all the God from the Bible, but something beyond that?

I really wish I could spout every curse word in the dictionary right now. I am only addressing the god of the Bible and only what the Bible has made clear. I have been specifically addressing only a particular set of conceptions about religious texts. The Qur'an for example makes it very clear and more so than the Bible about it's intended purpose. There is no wiggle room which is why Islam has remained so unchanged over the years.
The Bible and more specifically the Tanakh does not permit this. I myself have been referring to Genesis mostly and for good reason.

If I created an artificial world on my computer and managed to make the characters in there intelligent, would it automatically mean that my interest is for them to know about me or to figure it out on their own? What's the game I'm playing as God? Wouldn't it be more intriguing to give them hints here and there and see if they eventually get it?

So you are saying god is playing games? Now you need to prove the existence of god if you wish to make this hypothetical.

Actually you would not have to bother with the existence of a god. You would have to prove the nature of a god in order to do this. You must prove it is god's intent to play games. This becomes an even more ridiculous feat

 

[Sha'irullah]

You sure can. One of the ways of so doing is by insisting on literalism.

I am not insisting on literalism. Not everything can be taken literal in the Bible because some things are allegorical. But when I say allegorical I do not mean the usage of allegory for mere convenience. You do not expunge entire chapters.

 

[Omtita]

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 agree with some of the article, the first two numbered points. Though I believe evolution to be nothing more than a failed metaphysical experiment that started out in Greek philosophy thousands of years ago by Philosophers like The Epicureans and Stoics, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Aristotle taught some form of evolution.

From the Biblical perspective the reason you can't reconcile God with Evolution is simple. If Adam wasn't a real person, Created, who sinned, then there would be no reason for the sacrifice of Christ. The Bible would be false. The people who trly to reconcile the two probably don't know much about either, but if they deny Evolution they are 'thought' to be stupid and if they deny God they are 'thought' to be immoral.

The real problem is they don't think for themselves.

 

[Ouroboros]

When did Tolkien ever claim it was real? The intent behind the Lord of the Rings is obvious, it is implied knowledge.

But it doesn't say it.

The religious texts can very well be understood from the perspective of being implied as well. That's how non-literalists understand it. The non-literalists don't read the text literal, yet they feel they're the ones who are sincere and true to its real message and meaning.

The Bible and religious texts in general are also implied knowledge and the usual implication is anything but fiction although there are exceptions and this only applies to Dharmic religions and some pagan cults.

Mystery cults like Agnostics in the first century did not read the books literal but considered the epiphany you would get from reading them the true meaning. It's the words behind the words that are the true words, not the literal words up-front.

I am very familiar with the Jewish scribes you speak of, Jewish reformation was a major thing and Maimonides were well known contributors.

Good. Then you know that there's a long history of non-literalism, yet sincere, religious belief in those books.

I really wish I could spout every curse word in the dictionary right now. I am only addressing the god of the Bible and only what the Bible has made clear. I have been specifically addressing only a particular set of conceptions about religious texts. The Qur'an for example makes it very clear and more so than the Bible about it's intended purpose. There is no wiggle room which is why Islam has remained so unchanged over the years.
The Bible and more specifically the Tanakh does not permit this. I myself have been referring to Genesis mostly and for good reason.

Well, then it clarifies things. You spoke as if no religious person could be sincere without taking their holy book literal.

There are plenty Jews believing that Genesis is allegorical and not historical. Aren't they insincere in their beliefs then?

So you are saying god is playing games? Now you need to prove the existence of god if you wish to make this hypothetical.

Uhm... I think you have a different understanding of what hypothetical is then.

Actually you would not have to bother with the existence of a god. You would have to prove the nature of a god in order to do this. You must prove it is god's intent to play games. This becomes an even more ridiculous feat

??? I think you need to think over the things you just said, and put them into the perspective of your own reasoning. If I have to prove a hypothetical God to exist before I can argue it's hypothetical concept, then you have to too. If you argue that the "sincere" version of God is the only one we can argue about, then you also have to prove that version of God to exist first. Or does this rule only apply to me?

 

[Ouroboros]

I agree with some of the article, the first two numbered points. Though I believe evolution to be nothing more than a failed metaphysical experiment that started out in Greek philosophy thousands of years ago by Philosophers like The Epicureans and Stoics, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Aristotle taught some form of evolution.

From the Biblical perspective the reason you can't reconcile God with Evolution is simple. If Adam wasn't a real person, Created, who sinned, then there would be no reason for the sacrifice of Christ. The Bible would be false. The people who trly to reconcile the two probably don't know much about either, but if they deny Evolution they are 'thought' to be stupid and if they deny God they are 'thought' to be immoral.

The real problem is they don't think for themselves.

Or, think of Adam and Eve as representative categories of humanity, and Jesus not as some historical figure but a spiritual salvation for humanity as a whole. Not saying that this is what I believe, but I do suspect there are ways of wiggle it to fit.

I didn't go back to the article, but wasn't the article mostly just about "God" in general, and not specifically Christian Southern-Baptist Literalist Young Earth Creationist God?

The way I read the article was that she rejects the liberal religion, including any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, ... and even as far as including the Deists. Deists believe in a God who started the Universe and then left it on its own. They can't reconcile God with evolution either, if I'm to understand the sweeping generalization in the article.

My reading of the article gave the impression that the author reasons that you have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, which I find to be rather illogical (since there's been plenty of very smart philosophers who were Deists in the past and had no problem seeing the logic in a God who left our world to its own demise).

(And by the way, Evolution is most definitely not a failed metaphysical experiment. LOL! It's a very successful science. Anyway, you're allowed to your opinion.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Though I believe evolution to be nothing more than a failed metaphysical experiment that started out in Greek philosophy thousands of years ago by Philosophers like The Epicureans and Stoics, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Aristotle taught some form of evolution.

Indeed, most people who deny the validity of the scientific theory of evolution believe all sorts of wrong things about it. Ignorance about evolution certainly seems to be a primary factor in rejecting it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not insisting on literalism. Not everything can be taken literal in the Bible because some things are allegorical. But when I say allegorical I do not mean the usage of allegory for mere convenience. You do not expunge entire chapters.

I beg to differ. Literalists exist, and they betray their own faiths in so being (although that is probably not a proper subject matter for this area).

In any case, even literalists have a hard time actually seeing some conflict between Evolutionism and the idea of a Creator God. What really seems to motivate so-called "Creationism" is rather a displeasure at the idea that existence is not demonstrably made to exalt humanity.

 

[Omtita]

Indeed, most people who deny the validity of the scientific theory of evolution believe all sorts of wrong things about it. Ignorance about evolution certainly seems to be a primary factor in rejecting it.

[Laughs] Well . . . I don't doubt that, though the same applies to the Bible. But there's a fine line between disagreement and ignorance when the faithful to science interpret and can barely tolerate descent. Sound 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.

 

[sun rise]

Back to the scriptures where does it state that god created the cosmos from something with prior existence?

Also as for the subjectivity of your assertions about literalism. If it does not attempt to be allegory then it should not be taken as allegory. I see no assertion for anything in Genesis to be taken as allegory when there is no indication. If you assert it is something else other than allegory then please explain the basis of your position.
For millenia Christians asserted Genesis as being real and historical. If Yahweh cannot explain his scriptures for himself then I am nil concerned

I don't quite understand your first question but Hindu scriptures do just that - the there is a cycle of creation and destruction (lifetime of Brahma).

You're asserting that unless a scripture literally states that it is to be taken as an allegory it can't be. And you're asserting that there cannot be evolution in people's understanding because if something was taken one way then it can't change. So you're disbelieving in evolution of understanding (at least of scriptures).

Just as children believe all kinds of things and then understand better once they are grown, adults and cultures also grow and mature and understand from a more advanced perspective and this includes both science and theology.

 

[Omtita]

Or, think of Adam and Eve as representative categories of humanity, and Jesus not as some historical figure but a spiritual salvation for humanity as a whole. Not saying that this is what I believe, but I do suspect there are ways of wiggle it to fit.

I didn't go back to the article, but wasn't the article mostly just about "God" in general, and not specifically Christian Southern-Baptist Literalist Young Earth Creationist God?

My argument always comes from a Biblical rather than strictly theological doctrinal denominational sort of perspective.

The Bible states Adam as a real person who had real Children as listen genealogically, how any apostate group tries and misinterpret that isn't my consideration unless it introduced as such into the discussion / debate.

The way I read the article was that she rejects the liberal religion, including any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, ... and even as far as including the Deists. Deists believe in a God who started the Universe and then left it on its own. They can't reconcile God with evolution either, if I'm to understand the sweeping generalization in the article.

Yeah, well, I don't disagree. Even from, as I stated, from the Biblical perspective.

My reading of the article gave the impression that the author reasons that you have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, which I find to be rather illogical (since there's been plenty of very smart philosophers who were Deists in the past and had no problem seeing the logic in a God who left our world to its own demise).

Well, often in beliefs the original supposition has to be tweaked or - more likely over time - transmogrified in order to reconcile the twain that shall never meet. A lot of people who believe the Bible believe that the soul is immortal because of Socrates and Plato's influence rather than the Bible which clearly says the soul dies. (Ezekiel 18:4)

I believe that there are two possible ways to interpret anything. The right way and the wrong way. If that sounds arrogant, let me ask you. According to the Bible is the soul mortal?

(And by the way, Evolution is most definitely not a failed metaphysical experiment. LOL! It's a very successful science. Anyway, you're allowed to your opinion.)

It is not unusual for a theory to gradually be rejected after producing positive results. It could be said that it is only successful in effect because it is accepted. A respected ichthyologist looks down and sees a bump on a nut eating fish and assumes, due to evolution, that the fish evolved. Makes perfect sense because evolution is true? This is no different than a creationist laboring under the idea that because Creation is so awesome it must have been Created. It may be true but it isn't a terribly effective argument. Peer review? That's easy. If you disagree with us we will take your tenure, your job, your publishing, your funding, blacklist you and laugh you out of town.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

[Laughs] Well . . . I don't doubt that, though the same applies to the Bible. But there's a fine line between disagreement and ignorance when the faithful to science interpret and can barely tolerate descent. Sound familiar?

Not in the slightest. I have a fine tolerance for dissent. My lack of tolerance is generally limited to hypocrites, liars, and the willfully ignorant.

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.

Indeed, being an atheist doesn't shelter one from holding other false beliefs.

 

[Omtita]

I beg to differ. Literalists exist, and they betray their own faiths in so being (although that is probably not a proper subject matter for this area).

Isn't that like an atheist saying if you think the Bible is true then please sit down and shut up?

In any case, even literalists have a hard time actually seeing some conflict between Evolutionism and the idea of a Creator God. What really seems to motivate so-called "Creationism" is rather a displeasure at the idea that existence is not demonstrably made to exalt humanity.

Somehow that doesn't jive too well with the concept of original sin.

 

[Omtita]

Not in the slightest. I have a fine tolerance for dissent. My lack of tolerance is generally limited to hypocrites, liars, and the willfully ignorant. Indeed, being an atheist doesn't shelter one from holding other false beliefs.

Come on! You didn't see that?! You say it isn't in the slightest familiar while you are doing it!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Come on! You didn't see that?! You say it isn't in the slightest familiar while you are doing it!

I think your perception of what I'm supposedly doing reveals far more about you then it does about me.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is not unusual for a theory to gradually be rejected after producing positive results. It could be said that it is only successful in effect because it is accepted. A respected ichthyologist looks down and sees a bump on a nut eating fish and assumes, due to evolution, that the fish evolved. Makes perfect sense because evolution is true? This is no different than a creationist laboring under the idea that because Creation is so awesome it must have been Created. It may be true but it isn't a terribly effective argument. Peer review? That's easy. If you disagree with us we will take your tenure, your job, your publishing, your funding, blacklist you and laugh you out of town.

That's an extreme oversimplification of the science behind it. I've taken some classes in the subject and looked behind the veil, so to speak, without having to go too far or too deep into it, and it might sound like comparing bones is something that's done hastily and simplistic the way you say it, but it's not. I'm not going to entertain a discussion in this thread about it, so that's my last words on it.

And on the other topic about reading the Bible literally, I was a hard-core fundamentalist and literalist for 30 years. I never was a liberal Christian, but rather the extreme other end of the spectrum. Things changed, however, and I can today appreciate the Bible from a non-literal viewpoint even as a non-Christian now. The world makes more sense when you can incorporate all of it into one view.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't quite understand your first question but Hindu scriptures do just that - the there is a cycle of creation and destruction (lifetime of Brahma).

You're asserting that unless a scripture literally states that it is to be taken as an allegory it can't be. And you're asserting that there cannot be evolution in people's understanding because if something was taken one way then it can't change. So you're disbelieving in evolution of understanding (at least of scriptures).

Just as children believe all kinds of things and then understand better once they are grown, adults and cultures also grow and mature and understand from a more advanced perspective and this includes both science and theology.

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

 

[Omtita]

I think your perception of what I'm supposedly doing reveals far more about you then it does about me.

How do you figure that? I'm dissenting and you are tolerating?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How do you figure that? I'm dissenting and you are tolerating?

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. However, it does seem that I am teaching you how to improve your spelling. Perhaps we can build on that, and you can learn how to improve other cognitive skills from me.

 

[Omtita]

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. However, it does seem that I am teaching you how to improve your spelling. Perhaps we can build on that, and you can learn how to improve other cognitive skills from me.

That would be De-evolution. I can't spell for ****. I use spell check, well - Firefox.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That would be De-evolution.

It does seem that the religious mindset often perceives improvement of cognitive abilities as a bad thing.