Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[tomspug]

I certainly do. God had a grand design of human beings and other life but had to go through the other steps of life to get their as he created the boundaries of science (A house cannot be built without foundation being laid first). However through extraordinary acts of Faith, Science itself can be manipulated in events such as the parting of the Red Sea and healing lepers.

Right. I don't think I have to make such a choice, but if I did have to decide between belief in Creationism and belief in a loving God OF COURSE I would continue to believe in a loving God. The two beliefs are not reliant on each other.

So yeah, I still think that the concept of evolution is not compatible with the concept of 'sin' (since there was no "Fall of Man"), which is a big deal.

 

[logician]

That's why Dawkins calss it a delusion, belief in a god in not necessary with evolution, indeed it is superfluous.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you think it is possible to believe in both evolution and God/creationism.

Sure... I certainly do.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's why Dawkins calss it a delusion, belief in a god in not necessary with evolution, indeed it is superfluous.

Which is why we consider Dawkins a bigoted idiot. A concurrent belief in God and Evolution is certainly not contraindicated by anything except a hate filled imagination. Evolution says nothing about God and God has yet to say anything about evolution.

 

[Syphros]

So yeah, I still think that the concept of evolution is not compatible with the concept of 'sin' (since there was no "Fall of Man"), which is a big deal.

Good point, tomspug

I believe:

Adam and Eve were his working prototypes, they sinnned so the characteristics were past onto the other humans. You cannot build the perfect creation, first time round, unless you inspire or scare it enough so that it will not betray you.

...

 

[Sunstone]

Which is why we consider Dawkins a bigoted idiot. A concurrent belief in God and Evolution is certainly not contraindicated by anything except a hate filled imagination. Evolution says nothing about God and God has yet to say anything about evolution.

Dawkins does not strike me as a bigoted idiot, nor as someone who possesses a hate filled imagination. Such criticisms of him miss the mark.

The other night, I came across a video of Dawkins being interviewed for a news show by someone who repeatedly ascribed various positions to Dawkins that Dawkins does not hold. All the interviewer managed to do was convince me that he (the interviewer) was incompetent, and perhaps dimwitted.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dawkins does not strike me as a bigoted idiot, nor as someone who possesses a hate filled imagination. Such criticisms of him miss the mark.

When someone you agree with attacks someone you disagree with, you just might think they "deserve" it and miss the hate. When you are the one being attacked, there is no such equivocation. Given his way, religion would be banished from all of mankind. It's what he wants. It's what he is working for.

The other night, I came across a video of Dawkins being interviewed for a news show by someone who repeatedly ascribed various positions to Dawkins that Dawkins does not hold. All the interviewer managed to do was convince me that he (the interviewer) was incompetent, and perhaps dimwitted.

Denial: not just another river in Egypt. Ask Don Imus if HE is bigoted or even if he dislikes blacks. I am sure that the wily snake will make you believe that he is the paradigm of reason and congeniality. Actions speak louder than words, and reality takes precedence over his fantasy.

 

[Yerda]

When someone you agree with attacks someone you disagree with, you just might think they "deserve" it and miss the hate. When you are the one being attacked, there is no such equivocation. Given his way, religion would be banished from all of mankind. It's what he wants.

Dawkins doesn't appear to be a bigot to me. Neither does he appear to advocate the eradication of religion. Have you read his work?

 

[Sunstone]

When someone you agree with attacks someone you disagree with, you just might think they "deserve" it and miss the hate. When you are the one being attacked, there is no such equivocation. Given his way, religion would be banished from all of mankind. It's what he wants. It's what he is working for.

Have you actually read Dawkins, Pete?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have read a few of his articles that were more than offensive to me.

Like I said, if you agree with his views on religion then you probably won't discern his venom. Fortunately, he is not representative of MOST atheists.

 

[Sunstone]

Like I said, if you agree with his views on religion then you probably won't discern his venom. Fortunately, he is not representative of MOST atheists.

Did you read his article in which he praises Jesus? Or did you miss that one?

 

[Yerda]

I have read a few of his articles that were more than offensive to me.

Which ones?

 

[Scuba Pete]

What about intelligent people who accept evolution and do marvel at scientific advances (and perhaps were raised without much religion), but who suddenly find themselves wanting more-wanting a specifically religious dimension to their lives that science can't fill?

Well, I've never met one. I've met plenty of people who call themselves religious, but when you actually probe, when you ask them in detail what they believe, it turns out to be this very same awe and wonder that Wilson and Einstein talked about. If they're genuinely intelligent, it does not involve the supernatural. Unless they were brought up that way-but you were careful to say people who were not brought up religious.

Notice the "If they're genuinely intelligent..." comment. This was after two seconds of browsing the internet. Hey, if it's OK with you I will not idolize this bigot. I don't idolize Don Imus either and I am sure he has not met a "genuinely intelligent" black person. However, feel free to worship him all you want.

 

[Sunstone]

Notice the "If they're genuinely intelligent..." comment.

So, by your standards, someone who suggests that a "genuinely intelligent" person would not become religious -- unless they were raised to be religious -- is a bigot? Is that the best you can do, Pete?

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's been YEARS since I read Dawkins people and I was completely underwhelmed. I see no need to constantly berate my senses by exposing myself to his style of bigotry. Heck, I only had to read Mein Kampf once to figure out that I would never agree with Hitler. I have to admit, that I do not recollect the title of his article, only that I was completely and unequivocally disgusted with it. He will never be one of my intellectual heroes.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, by your standards, someone who suggests that a "genuinely intelligent" person would not become religious -- unless they were raised to be religious -- is a bigot? Is that the best you can do, Pete?

Dude, you are talking to the son of an atheist. You figure it out.

Is it the "best" I can do. No. It's all I am going to do though. The man does not merit any more of my precious time. You are more than free to worship him just as I am free to abhor him. Now, why don't we turn this BACK to the OP rather than continuing along this rather sordid off shoot.

 

[Sola'lor]

Simple, no god is needed for evolution to proceed or for that matter for life to originate, Homo sapiens was not an end-product of evolution, but a by-product -i.e. not something a supposed god designed or was waiting for. So simply put, no god is needed or necessary with evolution.

Prove it.

 

[fantome profane]

Ask Don Imus if HE is bigoted or even if he dislikes blacks. I am sure that the wily snake will make you believe that he is the paradigm of reason and congeniality. Actions speak louder than words, and reality takes precedence over his fantasy.

.

It's been YEARS since I read Dawkins people and I was completely underwhelmed. I see no need to constantly berate my senses by exposing myself to his style of bigotry. Heck, I only had to read Mein Kampf once to figure out that I would never agree with Hitler. I have to admit, that I do not recollect the title of his article, only that I was completely and unequivocally disgusted with it. He will never be one of my intellectual heroes.

But certainly you can see the difference between someone who speaks out against an idea and someone who speaks out against an ethnic group.

There are many quite valid criticisms that can legitimately be leveled against Richard Dawkins, but comparing him to a racist like Imus is not one of them. These kind of absurd ad hominem attacks only show the weakness of your position.

It is apparent to me that many people are unable or unwilling to consider Dawkins arguments (which is fine, that is your choice). So instead of putting in the effort that would be required to put forth valid criticisms, opt to launch personal attacks that are absolutely without merit (this is not fine). Comparing Dawkins to Hitler is frankly just pathetic. These kind of attacks speak more of the fear and desperation of those who level them than the do of Dawkins himself.

 

[Scuba Pete]

.
But certainly you can see the difference between someone who speaks out against an idea and someone who speaks out against an ethnic group.

Give me a break. He essentially calls ANYONE who believes in God stupid. Are you defending his stance here? He constantly castigates the "religious mind" as he terms it. Read the first chapter of his "The God Delusion". The man hates religion MORE than I detest Shrub! His quest is to remove religion from the planet. No more and certainly no less. Like I told Phil: worship at his feet as you wish. All I see is a mean spirited huckster who wants to make a few bucks bashing religion and those who believe in it. He has found an audience who are willing to clap in time while he sings about the short comings of religion. If it makes you feel better about yourself to read this schmaltz then go for it. He is the Rush Limbaugh of science.

 

[fantome profane]

Give me a break. He essentially calls ANYONE who believes in God stupid. Are you defending his stance here?

I am saying there is a difference between speaking out against an idea and speaking out against an ethnic group. Do you disagree?

He constantly castigates the "religious mind" as he terms it. Read the first chapter of his "The God Delusion".

Read the whole thing.(better yet read some of this other books, they are actually much better). Yes he hates religion. What I am saying is that there is a significant difference between expressing a hatred for religion and expressing hatred for people. The latter is not acceptable, but the former is. I reject this idea that anyone who criticizes religion (or even who hates religion) is a bigot