• 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!

Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

M

Michel07

Active Member
Well , I and others have put forward a few arguments against atheism most of which of course won't be accepted because at the end of the day we believe what we want to believe and we are responsible for that, ourselves, independent of all the arguments.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Escéptico;1106129 said:
The point is that Newton and Pasteur, whatever their religious beliefs, never proposed supernatural or theistic mechanisms to explain natural phenomena. This is the advantage of methodological naturalism:
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong about that. I don’t know about Pasture, but Newton absolutely did. Isaac Newton was of course one of the most brilliant humans to ever walk this planet, and he was also a religious man.

Sir Isaac Newton did on several occasions and on several different subject matters propose theistic mechanism to explain natural phenomena.

When Isaac Newton calculated the movements of the planets he was unable to take into account all of the minor gravitational forces that each planet applies to each other. He could not account for the stability of the solar system. So what does he do? He says this.

“
Click to expand...
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One;” – Isaac Newton - source
Click to expand...

I point this out not to contradict your point about the importance of methodological naturalism in science, but rather because I think it highlights how important it is. When Newton invoked “God” as an explanation, Newton failed. When he let his religious views interfere with his science he failed. Even if he had not found a solution to the problem, simply recognising an unsolved problem would have been a triumph. But instead Newton choose to abandon any scientific search for a solution in favour of religious faith.

It was of course Pierre-Simon de Laplace who worked out some of the finer detail of the movements of the planets in the solar system, and also presented several new hypothesis concerning its initial formation. He was able to do this not because he was more brilliant than Newton (Laplace was certainly brilliant, but not as brilliant as Newton). He was able to do this because he did not invoke “God” as his explaination. He was able to find a scientific explaination because he used methodological naturalism.


(As part of a series called “Beyond Belief”, Neil deGrasse Tyson (session 2) gives an excellent talk about this and the dangers of Intelligent Design through out history.)
 
D

Da Troof

Member
A much more sensible question would be :

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO BELIEVE IN BOTH GOD AND EVOLUTION?

In fact why not ask the question

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO BELIEVE IN GOD?

The answer to both questions is clearly NO.

People believe in God because they want an explanation for things they cannot explain. OK so how do you explain God? Where did it come from? What is it made of? What was there before God? etc etc etc
 
crystalonyx

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
The terms "God exists" or "God does not exist" are not well defined, therefore no proof can be offered for either by definition.
 
M

Michel07

Active Member
Da Troof said:
A much more sensible question would be :

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO BELIEVE IN BOTH GOD AND EVOLUTION?

In fact why not ask the question

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO BELIEVE IN GOD?

The answer to both questions is clearly NO.

People believe in God because they want an explanation for things they cannot explain. OK so how do you explain God? Where did it come from? What is it made of? What was there before God? etc etc etc
Click to expand...

Do you think you are the first to ask the question? This is priceless.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Michel07 said:
Do you think you are the first to ask the question? This is priceless.
Click to expand...
So, no answer I suppose?
This is the ultimate problem with many religions, they simply delay the question they seek to answer then hide behind smoke and mirrors
 
M

Michel07

Active Member
Da Troof said:
A much more sensible question would be :

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO BELIEVE IN BOTH GOD AND EVOLUTION?

In fact why not ask the question

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO BELIEVE IN GOD?

The answer to both questions is clearly NO.

People believe in God because they want an explanation for things they cannot explain. OK so how do you explain God? Where did it come from? What is it made of? What was there before God? etc etc etc
Click to expand...

This thread is full of answers to that question . Some have done their homework . Do yours and you will not be full of so many questions without answers.
 
M

Michel07

Active Member
Jay said:
Noting that the forum is full of it (so to speak) says nothing about the cogency of the answers.
Click to expand...

You may have diffculty in accepting some of the answers put forward by others but what does that have to do with the truth? Or does that matter?
You think mine is an agenda and I think atheism is an agenda.Of course if atheists are right I'll never know it and if Christians are right, atheists are going to know it. I have nothing to lose in my faith and atheists have nothing to gain by their philosophy.
For all intents and purposes all of their protestations are moot points. The argument has already been won.
And ,yes, it does get a little boring going over it all the time.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Michel07 said:
You may have diffculty in accepting some of the answers put forward by others but what does that have to do with the truth?
Click to expand...
You may have no difficulty accepting some of the answers put forward by others but what does that have to do with the truth?
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Michel07 said:
You may have diffculty in accepting some of the answers put forward by others but what does that have to do with the truth? Or does that matter?
You think mine is an agenda and I think atheism is an agenda.Of course if atheists are right I'll never know it and if Christians are right, atheists are going to know it. I have nothing to lose in my faith and atheists have nothing to gain by their philosophy.
For all intents and purposes all of their protestations are moot points. The argument has already been won.
And ,yes, it does get a little boring going over it all the time.
Click to expand...

Explain to me again how the argument has been won. Do I believe in your God? As far as I know I still don't.

I do understand that you're not in it to get the truth, just to try to win an argument. I understand this means you need to pick a side that can at some point be proven right, but that doesn't mean you've picked the correct side. Remember that most here are in this to get to the truth, not win an argument. I know that my view will never be proven correct, and that's fine with me. I'd rather be right, and not be proven correct than be wrong and delude myself my whole life. I think the pursuit of the truth is more fulfilling than claiming I know everything. Hopefully one day you'll realize that whether or not an argument can be proven correct is completely irrelevant to its correctness.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
fantôme profane;1106117 said:
I’m not sure I understand the controversy on this one. Am I missing something? Was there something specific that he was teaching in his general biology class that caused him to be removed? Or was he removed from this position just because he wrote the book?

I have been a strong proponent of evolution and of scientific education, and I feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in public schools. But this is a university. This is where wacky ideas should be explored. University students should be intelligent enough and educated enough to rip apart any lecture by a professor that involves creationism/i.d. And any university student that feels they are not getting a sufficient scientific education in biology should just leave and enroll in a better university. But from what I have read this guy doesn’t even seem to be promoting anything like intelligent design or scientific creationism. He is simply stating his belief that “God” created using evolution. I don’t agree with his position, but it seems to be a position that is inline with the philosophy of the university where he taught.


So what is the issue here? Are we really saying that anyone who holds the views that Richard Colling holds is disqualified from teaching biology? Are we going to ban all Christians or all theists from teaching science?


Again I ask, am I missing something here? Please if I am I hope somebody here can fill me in.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that it's just the opposite, fantome. The creationists wanted him fired for implying that evolution could be correct and therefore, since it's a Nazarene school, biblical.
 
M

Michel07

Active Member
Jay said:
Yes. To assertis adolescent rubbish. If worldviews were picked and discarded based on the metrics of gain and loss we'd all still be paying homage to Santa and the Tooth Faerie.
Click to expand...

The "rubbish" is not all worldviews but atheism is the king of rubbish. Good luck with that.
I could tell a child who has inoperable cancer not to fear. That she is loved by more than her parents and that Jesus said of her and those like her. " The Kingdom of Heaven was made for such as these" in reference to children. What is atheism going to tell her? Think about it. I do not despise atheists but the atheism as an evil. What you promote unless one is a complete navel gazer is also promoted for others.
 
M

Michel07

Active Member
mball1297 said:
Explain to me again how the argument has been won. Do I believe in your God? As far as I know I still don't.

I do understand that you're not in it to get the truth, just to try to win an argument. I understand this means you need to pick a side that can at some point be proven right, but that doesn't mean you've picked the correct side. Remember that most here are in this to get to the truth, not win an argument. I know that my view will never be proven correct, and that's fine with me. I'd rather be right, and not be proven correct than be wrong and delude myself my whole life. I think the pursuit of the truth is more fulfilling than claiming I know everything. Hopefully one day you'll realize that whether or not an argument can be proven correct is completely irrelevant to its correctness.
Click to expand...

This is all about the pursuit of truth. Don't you think from a logical point of view that something should at least have a chance to be proven true to even qualify as a possible truth? I certainly do. And you have qualified your own position as totally unable to be proven true. Think about it mball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top