What would it mean to your religious beliefs if evolution were true?

[metis]

Bloody pedant.

I've been called far worse!

 

[Secret Chief]

I've been called far worse!

PS I've edited my post....but it's just as trivial....

 

[metis]

Bloody pedant.
OK then, I'd say it is concerned with evolution because it is concerned with the true nature of reality. Beat that!

Good point, but then even a blind chicken gets a worm once in a while!

 

[an anarchist]

When I was a Christian, I was a theistic evolutionist; meaning that I believed in God, and that the processes of the natural world had been set in place to accomplish his ends. In other words, there was no conflict between my faith and any of the currently accepted scientific theories. As a result, it very much perplexed me when Christians who found out I was not a believer would start talking about evolution and the Big Bang Theory - or more accurately, what their church had falsely taught them about evolution and the Big Bang Theory. For them it was an important theological point. For me, evolution was no more meaningful to my belief in a god than heliocentrism.

How much would the theory of evolution being true impact your beliefs. And why?

I believe in a young earth, so I would have to alter my religious beliefs drastically. I believe man is distinctly not an animal nor did we come from one.
I proposed on a thread that God created an aged universe with fully evolved beings 6000 years ago. RFians let me know I believed in "Last Thursdayism" but I view that as an incorrect label of the idea. "God could've made the whole world last thursday with your logic!" I was told. But I don't think we were made last Thursday, we were made already fully evolved 6000 years ago (my belief). I'm a biblical literalist, one of the few on this site, so yea if someone could convince me we share a common ancestor as monkeys I could no longer be a biblical literalist.

 

[sayak83]

When I was a Christian, I was a theistic evolutionist; meaning that I believed in God, and that the processes of the natural world had been set in place to accomplish his ends. In other words, there was no conflict between my faith and any of the currently accepted scientific theories. As a result, it very much perplexed me when Christians who found out I was not a believer would start talking about evolution and the Big Bang Theory - or more accurately, what their church had falsely taught them about evolution and the Big Bang Theory. For them it was an important theological point. For me, evolution was no more meaningful to my belief in a god than heliocentrism.

How much would the theory of evolution being true impact your beliefs. And why?

Zero impact. Just another way in which actions and events redound onto and mould and shape life on earth and in the universe.
In Hinduisms universes too come and go and maybe evolve over gigalions on eons through a complex net of actions and events which is the creative drive of the Brahman.

 

[sayak83]

Zero. Buddhism is not concerned with evolution.

Actually it would serve as a spectacularly cogent example of how dependent origination works over the long time scales in my opinion.
Also it eliminates the idea of static kinds of life and makes living things a flux, always shifting over a ever changing fitness landscape. Ties very well with Buddhist ontology of absence of essences.

 

[metis]

Actually it would serve as a spectacularly cogent example of how dependent origination works over the long time scales in my opinion..

Good point, imo, although I prefer the terminology "dependence rising".

Ya, I'm being "anal".

 

[ppp]

Yes fair enough, quite a lot of religious people don't think or listen to their pastors.

I am afraid that they are listing to their Pastors. In the US, the largest protestant churches are officially creationists. Even if all their members are not. The Southern Baptist convention being the largest by far.

 

[ppp]

Evolution is consistent with the Christian understanding of God.

Well, with a subset of the assorted Christian understandings of God.

 

[Secret Chief]

Actually it would serve as a spectacularly cogent example of how dependent origination works over the long time scales in my opinion.
Also it eliminates the idea of static kinds of life and makes living things a flux, always shifting over a ever changing fitness landscape. Ties very well with Buddhist ontology of absence of essences.

I agree.

 

[ppp]

I believe in a young earth, so I would have to alter my religious beliefs drastically. I believe man is distinctly not an animal nor did we come from one.
I proposed on a thread that God created an aged universe with fully evolved beings 6000 years ago. RFians let me know I believed in "Last Thursdayism" but I view that as an incorrect label of the idea. "God could've made the whole world last thursday with your logic!" I was told. But I don't think we were made last Thursday, we were made already fully evolved 6000 years ago (my belief). I'm a biblical literalist, one of the few on this site, so yea if someone could convince me we share a common ancestor as monkeys I could no longer be a biblical literalist.

So, you would no longer be a Biblical literalist, but you would still believe in God? The Christian god? I am asking. Don't let me put words into your mouth.

 

[an anarchist]

So, you would no longer be a Biblical literalist, but you would still believe in God? The Christian god? I am asking. Don't let me put words into your mouth.

Well I would have to reevaluate whether I still considered the Bible to be from God himself. I think I would still believe in a God, but I would probably become agnosticish. As in like "I think there's a God but I don't think we know who He is."

If I can't take the Bible literally, I think I wouldn't be able to believe in the Christian God specifically. The belief that the Bible is an inerrant recording of all history is central to my theology.

 

[firedragon]

evolution being true would confirm my islamic faith. quran ' man created from the earth in stages'

Interesting.

 

[ppp]

If I can't take the Bible literally, I think I wouldn't be able to believe in the Christian God specifically. The belief that the Bible is an inerrant recording of all history is central to my theology.

I assume you mean all Hebrew history.
Not to get off track, but how do you reconcile Matthews's omission of Ahaziah, Joash, & Amaziah from the OT genealogy? Also, (and separately) how does tracing genealogy to Jesus through Joseph make sense? I am just curious. If you don't want to answer either or both questions, that is fine.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I find it interesting when Christians tell me that the theory of evolution is consistent with their faith. They've accepted that evolution occurs, they believe in God, and therefore, the two are compatible. But are they?

Do they believe that God created man in His own image? If so, how does that comport with Darwin's theory?

Christianity is consistent with directed evolution - divine selection or divine genetic variation - but to me, that's creationism, not the scientific theory, where nature blindly selects from among naturally occurring variations.

 

[exchemist]

I am afraid that they are listing to their Pastors. In the US, the largest protestant churches are officially creationists. Even if all their members are not. The Southern Baptist convention being the largest by far.

Ah well, that's the US for you.

 

[ppp]

Ah well, that's the US for you.

Don't I know it!

 

[ppp]

I find it interesting when Christians tell me that the theory of evolution is consistent with their faith. They've accepted that evolution occurs, they believe in God, and therefore, the two are compatible. But are they?

Do they believe that God created man in His own image? If so, how does that comport with Darwin's theory?

Christianity is consistent with directed evolution - divine selection or divine genetic variation - but to me, that's creationism, not the scientific theory, where nature blindly selects from among naturally occurring variations.

When I was a believer, I pictured the biosphere as a giant game that was a combination of pool, marbles, dominoes, and mouse trap. That someone with enough knowledge and processing power could know just how to set things up in order to get the chain of causal events that led to his desired outcome. This includes all reactions and interactions necessary to get us. Or actually, I was of the opinion that "in God's image" referred to creativity, and to moral and intellectual agency. That was the image God was going for. And that such was an eventual inevitable outcome of the system we find ourselves in.

 

[F1fan]

I believe in a young earth, so I would have to alter my religious beliefs drastically. I believe man is distinctly not an animal nor did we come from one.
I proposed on a thread that God created an aged universe with fully evolved beings 6000 years ago. RFians let me know I believed in "Last Thursdayism" but I view that as an incorrect label of the idea. "God could've made the whole world last thursday with your logic!" I was told. But I don't think we were made last Thursday, we were made already fully evolved 6000 years ago (my belief). I'm a biblical literalist, one of the few on this site, so yea if someone could convince me we share a common ancestor as monkeys I could no longer be a biblical literalist.

I'm curious about how creationists became so. When did you adopt this view, and who told you about creationism?

 

[an anarchist]

how does tracing genealogy to Jesus through Joseph make sense?

Years ago I asked a pastor this question. What he told me was the Joseph would have been the rightful king of the Jews had they not stopped having kings. Said it gave legitimacy to Jesus's claim that He was the rightful King of the Jews. So one account it traces Jesus's kingship from God and Mary, and the other account was to cover his legal bases or something like that. Truth be told I haven't thought about it much since I was offered that explanation