Is the Theory of Evolution Harmless to Religion?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Victor, do you believe that birds were created prior to the land-based animal kingdom?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I might suggest that both yourself and the ID advocate might be unqualified to discern what is intelligent for an infinite being to do or not do.

I had a response ready in my head, but others beat me to it! Oh well, back to the topic...

In reality there is nothing in the scriptures (Old or New) that decries the belief of evolution.

Replace "reality" with "NetDoc's personal interpretation" and we'll have an accord. In my opinion, Genesis is one of a countless number of compelling creation stories (including creation stories of Zoroastrianism, Egypt, the Inca, the Norse , and many others) which demonstrate humankind's inventiveness and imagination and struggle to understand their world. It was never intended as a metaphor for speciation via natural selection and genetic mutation. Saying that Eve being made of Adam's rib was somehow a metaphor for something less dubious to modern audiences is simply an example of an ancient belief being reinterpreted in light of modern knowledge, and projecting that modern knowledge back onto the authors of the myth. Believers who reinterpret ancient stories to extract meaning from them that is relevant to an ever-changing world should be applauded; but at the same time, it's important not to confuse what we regard as important/significant in the stories with the original beliefs and intentions of the ancient peoples who passed down these stories.

Christians (according to their traditional creeds), however, believe that God is the divine Creator. Being Such, God cannot be discovered by science, but is revealed in theology. The two disciplines of science and theology shall never meet, so they cannot possibly be a threat to eachother.

But there is so much more to religion than theology, angellous evangellous. You clearly are intent on reconciling your faith with science, and for that you should be commended. But "religion" is certainly not confined to either theology or even the supernatural. Over the millennia explanations for everything from where the Earth came from to why people have siezures came from religion. The idea that religion's job is limited only to explaining only God and/or the metaphysical, and that all things physical are left to empirical science, in fact, is a relatively recent concept in human history; one we should be careful not to project back on people from ancient times.

To answer the question, "Is the Theory of Evolution Harmless to Religion?" my answer is that it depends on what you mean by "harmless" and which religion (and which brand of that religion) we're talking about. Logically, there is no conflict between evolution and the existence of any supernatural entities/events. In fact, many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. have no problem with evolution. In addition, many religions like Taoism and Buddhism do not have creation stories to begin with.

On the other hand, studies have shown a correlation between belief in evolution and lower levels of what sociologists call "religiosity" (being a member of an organized religion, attending services, praying, etc). There is a psychological aspect of evolutionary theories (and scientific explanations in general) that cannot be ignored. While it might not be *illogical* to posit a God who created everything in six days but then placed evidence of millions of years of evolution and cosmic expansion just to trick us, it's not exactly *plausible* either. It might not be *illogical* to posit a God who designed humans specifically so that 1 in 10,000 of them would be born with hemophilia, who designed the universe specifically so that countless planets would be devoid of life, who designed flightless birds with wings that are absolutely useless to them.....but then, there's no real reason to believe it, either, especially if there are good scientific explanations for those things. Again, I'm not talking about the logical here...Im talking about the psychological.

Of course, correspondance does not necessarily imply causality. In my opinion, speaking of "religion" in the most general terms, nothing can ever threaten its place among human institutions so long as it gives people an identity, brings them into a community, and fulfills their need to wonder about stuff. Religions will simply adapt to the intellectual challenge posed by evolution just as they have adapted to countless challenges of the past, and thus continue to evolve themselves.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But there is so much more to religion than theology, angellous evangellous. You clearly are intent on reconciling your faith with science, and for that you should be commended. But "religion" is certainly not confined to either theology or even the supernatural. Over the millennia explanations for everything from where the Earth came from to why people have siezures came from religion. The idea that religion's job is limited only to explaining only God and/or the metaphysical, and that all things physical are left to empirical science, in fact, is a relatively recent concept in human history; one we should be careful not to project back on people from ancient times.
--

How recent is empirical science?

My only agenda is to recoincile theology with itself, not theology with science. The two fields need no recoinciliation because they cannot study the same thing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How recent is empirical science?

Most historians of science trace the birth of what we would call modern science back to the Copernican revolution of the late 16th century. Before that time, most people thought very differently of science and religion than we do today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#The_Scientific_Revolution

My only agenda is to recoincile theology with itself, not theology with science. The two fields need no recoinciliation because they cannot study the same thing.

Fair enough.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

nothing can ever threaten its place among human institutions so long as it gives people an identity

I should have said AS long as.....that's a terrible habit I have to break.

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, do you believe that birds were created prior to the land-based animal kingdom?

I believe birds were created. That's it.

~Victor

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Most historians of science trace the birth of what we would call modern science back to the Copernican revolution of the late 16th century. Before that time, most people thought very differently of science and religion than we do today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#The_Scientific_Revolution

Fair enough.

Thanks. I am well aware that I am a man of my times. I never implied that the ancients hold to my view.

I asked the question to demonstrate that empirical science is a new kid on the block. My view is new because it was not needed before. The roots of science, I believe, go back to the inquisitiveness of Socrates. Theology is the product of philosophy, which is the father of empirical science IMHO. So the practice of theology has always incorporated what humanity knew. The relationship between the practice of theology and human advancement, however hostile, has always been evident. It simply took longer for us to stop using the metaphysical plain the physical.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

For a very long time since the death of Jesus there has been the idea that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, that it was written by men, but that their hands were controlled by the holy spirit. If you start off with this as your basis, then you can quite simply not rationally accept anything other than a literal translation of the bible, and for many many centuries that is what was taught. Frighteningly it is still being taught to some. Even scarier, some who are being taught this, are beleiving it.

If you take the Bible literally in every word, then you simply must believe in a Young Earth of about 6000 years give or take a few centuries, you must beleive that the story of Noah literally happened about 4,000 years ago, that Jonah survived in the belly of a great fish, and so forth and so on.

In the time when this stuff was being taught to ignorant, illiterate peasants, you could get away with telling people this is all literal and not to be questioned. And if anyone chooses to start thinking on their own, we will accuse him of being a Jew or a heretic, and he can spend the afternoon with Torquemada. . . any questions now? I thought not, let us continue.

When man started observing the world around him and realizing that a lot of this stuff from the Bible, quite simply cannot be taken literally, you had the dawn of a now centuries old rift between religion and learning. Heliocentrism was one of the first of the major issues of this type. There was a time several centuries past when forwarding the idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but instead revolved around the Sun would get you branded a heretic, and get you excomunicated from the Church. Seems like there was someone of above average intelligence who suffered this fate. . . now what was his name? Ah well, doesn't matter, anyone who disagrees with the Bible could not possibly be of any importance.

In more recent times we have the issue of evolution vs. creation made literally front page news by the Scopes trial. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/menck02.htm#SCOPES4 is an historical account of the times and place in which this trial took place.

When we start off with the idea that the Bible has to be taken literally, every word of it, then we are confronted with the harsh reality that it simply cannot be taken literally by anyone of education and intelligence, then we begin to have problems. You have to, when confronted with such evidence, be it evolution or heliocentrism, to do something to make rational sense of the seemingly untenable situation. There are several options.

1. Come to the conclusion that the Bible is not infallible, and is not to be taken literally.
2. Come to the conclusion that the Bible is still infallible, but that only parts of it are to be taken literally.
3. Remain convinced that the Bible is the literal truth and all these "scientist" types are involved in a huge scheme to corrupt people, and take them farther away from God.

There are no doubt many other options available to attempt to reconcile the rift, but these are 3 which come to mind quickly, and all 3 of which have a good portion of people adhering to them by my observation.

A lot of fundamentalists fall into category 3. These people are going to insist that a literal translation is still plausible, and as such, they are going to take anything which tends to disprove a literal translation as an affront to their religion. This struggle has gone back many centuries between literalists/ fundamentalists and people of learning/scientists. As you go up in income levels and levels of education you will find fewer and fewer people, on average, who buy into a literal translation of the Bible. This is not surprising, as educated people who are good wage earners have to have the capacity for rational thought, and literal word for word translation in many cases violates rationality.

Kind of long winded for me, I suppose, but this is a vastly interesting subject, and my office is closed for ice today, so for those who read this, thanks for suffering through with me.

B.

 

[Quiddity]

For a very long time since the death of Jesus there has been the idea that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, that it was written by men, but that their hands were controlled by the holy spirit.

This is incorrect. Here is lengthy document that can hopefully clarify it for you.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

~Victor

 

[greatcalgarian]

This is incorrect. Here is lengthy document that can hopefully clarify it for you.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

~Victor

I find it very difficult to read through the entire article.

Could you summarize the article and state for me whether the article is saying one of the following:
(1) The bible is written by men inspired by God
(2) The bible is inspired by God
(3) The bible has nothing to do with inspiration of God
or none of the above.
Then please give me one sentence to summarize what the article is trying to say.
Please?

 

[James the Persian]

For a very long time since the death of Jesus there has been the idea that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, that it was written by men, but that their hands were controlled by the holy spirit. If you start off with this as your basis, then you can quite simply not rationally accept anything other than a literal translation of the bible, and for many many centuries that is what was taught. Frighteningly it is still being taught to some. Even scarier, some who are being taught this, are beleiving it.

This is absolutely false. Many Church Fathers, right from the very beginning of the Church, made metaphorical and figuritive interpretations of Scripture, particularly the hexaemeron (6 days of creation). Read St. Basil the Great on the creation, for example, and tell me that he is accepting every word as written to be literal truth. This view, that the Scriptures are the literal and perfect word of God and must be taken as such absolutely, does not stem from the early years of the Church at all, but from the Reformation. As such, it has not been taught from the very beginning but only during about the last 500 years, and only in Protestant circles.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Victor, do you believe that birds were created prior to the land-based animal kingdom?

I believe birds were created. That's it.

This is an instructive example of how some reconcile religion with science.

 

[michel]

This is an instructive example of how some reconcile religion with science.

To be frank, what other answer could you have expected ?
Or, to put it another way, why ask a question, the answer to which you know will be one that you consider nonsensical, and of the world of "pink elephants and spagghetti monsters" ? - Victor's answer was predictable, understanding his beliefs............

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To be frank, what other answer could you have expected ?

Well, shucks michel, let me think real hard ... wait ... I got it ... two possible answers to the question were ...

1. Yes.
2. No.

What do you think?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Victor's answer was predictable, understanding his beliefs............

Great. Since (1) you claim to understand Victor's belief, and (2) Victor apparently wants to keep it secret, perhaps you could tell us: does Victor believe that birds were created prior to the land-based animal kingdom?

 

[michel]

Well, shucks michel, let me think real hard ... wait ... I got it ... two possible answers to the question were ...

1. Yes.
2. No.

What do you think?

Put it this way, you prepared a trap. Why ? what satisfaction do you get from setting questions that you know committed theists are going to walk into ? Is there some reward in it for you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Put it this way, you prepared a trap. Why ? what satisfaction do you get from setting questions that you know committed theists are going to walk into ? Is there some reward in it for you?

How pathetic. There is no "trap" michel, You're simply projecting you're insecurities. Perhaps you are ashamed of your positions, but most theists I know, including Orthodox Jews in my own family, would have (and have had) absolutely no problem answering such a question.

The answer goes far to frame the discussions which follow. So, for example, those who answer "yes" demonstrate a willingness to accept the Torah as flawed allegory. Those who answer "no", demonstrate a willingness to reject scientific knowledge. And when those among the latter speak of evolution and religion being compatible, you can be sure that they mean something different by "evolution" than does the scientific community.

There is, by the way, a third answer. My Orthodox son-in-law, who takes the question quite seriously, simply admits that he does not know. He says, in effect:

• The Torah was given to us by HaShem.
• I have the deepest respect for science.
• I do not understand why they sometimes contradict one another.

I very much like my son-in-law.

 

[michel]

How pathetic. There is no "trap" michel, You're simply projecting you're insecurities. Perhaps you are ashamed of your positions, but most theists I know, including Orthodox Jews in my own family, would have (and have had) absolutely no problem answering such a question.

The answer goes far to frame the discussions which follow. So, for example, those who answer "yes" demonstrate a willingness to accept the Torah as flawed allegory. Those who answer "no", demonstrate a willingness to reject scientific knowledge. And when those among the latter speak of evolution and religion being compatible, you can be sure that they mean something different by "evolution" than does the scientific community.

There is, by the way, a third answer. My Orthodox son-in-law, who takes the question quite seriously, simply admits that he does not know. He says, in effect:

• The Torah was given to us by HaShem.
• I have the deepest respect for science.
• I do not understand why they sometimes contradict one another.

I very much like my son-in-law.

hehe, you misunderstood me completely; I can assure you I have no insecurities; I was talking about the 'honeyed trap' for Victor..........

Let's be frank; you know (or at least ought to be able to predict) how someone conscientious, like Victor, trying to be true to his faith, will answer your questions............your questions are asked in such a way as to lead him to give an ultimate answer which you can rubbish. Sorry if I misjudhge you, but that is the way I see it. I just can't imagine why you should keep repeating the excercise...............

I am happy in my faith; I need explain it to no one there is no proof, I know it; what is more I am no 'taylor made' Christian, I seem to have the ability of upsetting everyone, because I don't 'fit' snugly in a box. But that is me. Heck, it's my problem, if I saw it as one; but I don't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

hehe, you misunderstood me completely; ...

I seriously doubt it.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that a religion which can't or won't be reconciled to science is in danger of becoming marginalized, like the flat earth society.