christians can not believe in evolution

[Comrade Anarchist]

For christians believing in "god" is mandatory but now it seems that christians dont have to believe what he supposedly spoke. Many christians now believe in evolution but i dont understand because evolution undermines genesis which is the "creation story". So if you dont believe in the creation story that your god that you believe in supposedly spoke down to man many years ago then you cant believe in a god because if you take genesis away then there is nothing to support some kind of god. If you dont believe in what he supposedly spoke then doesnt that undermine every part of the bible without which there would be no judeo-christian god.

[Nulono]

The Holey Babble also says the earth is flat and the stars are on a dome.

[Nulono]

Oh, and that pi is three and bats are birds.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Evolution is an assumption. Do we "assume everyone should assume evolution," ad infinity? I suppose we have to have some criteria for belief. I just don't like being tossed in with the religious people.

Also, religious individuals already presume faith is superior to logical relations, such as ~A v A, so why would they change their mind when logical relations combine with matters of fact? Religious individuals rarely operate from the same logical framework that we do. Those that do, simply, have convoluted logical explanations where "faith" somehow gets precedent over other propositions because it is "infinitely important."

Survey Christians. If it turned out that belief in God contradicted 1+1=2, the existence of water, the existence of good, or the existence of yourself, which, if any, of these criteria would be sufficient for you disbelieving in God:

My suspected answer: none

The possible explanation. God is the definition of truth. This is a sense "above" our other senses. If a truth violates the existence of God, our conceptualization of the world is mistaken. Fundamentalists will apply these "truth foundations" to a verity of biblical rules with no basis.

Do individuals have a fundamental rationality, perception preference, et cetera. Given that a certain amount of logical conventions are required to function in society, I think a logical proof (not the possibility of one) could persuade individuals to disregard their beliefs, in some cases.

However, the existence of God is Y. To refutation of a particular view of God, you need the the definition or a refutation of "faith," in general, which would require a definition. If we establish a physical definition of faith, and medicate it, perhaps, what criteria exist for considering it "false." We could blind everyone in the world, at birth, and tell them of the procedure as "purification" of some sort. What would have them believe otherwise?

Delusions and hallucinations, religious or otherwise, are difficult to substantiate as false with respect to anything but majority opinion. We "have to" believe they are false, by inclination, because do not have those senses. Does a blind man "truly" believe other people can see? If he learns about the process, perhaps. If we learn religious belief is something in the brain, which I suspect it is, what decides if it's true or false? Nothing except pragmatism.

We could medicate someone to be non-religious, hypothetically, and presume they would be better off. However, what is sufficient time to determine the results? Someone who has not exercised, upon starting, will appear considerably worse off. We can presumably believe someone who has a fundamental part of their world view, whether harmful or not, simply "disappear." Or could we? When you stop believing people are always good, as a child, it's probably a sad realization. We atheists tend to see "what is" as a positive realization. The ability of the individual to realize their own power to conceptualize reality.

From what basis should we assume preference towards atheism will be universal, upon clear thinking? If you lived in a society where sight did not exist, and you were blinded, would you be satisfied with your new "real perception?" This is a troubling hypothetical that I have yet to account for as anything but self-empowerment. However, self-empowerment requires the strength of will to establish your own realities existentially. Can all people do this? Could this conflict be reflected in atheists who "feel God" yet disbelief in him, perhaps? They resent the control or they simply have lingering "feelings" of belief. Who knows.

I like my atheism and my evolution, though.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The Holey Babble also says the earth is flat and the stars are on a dome.

Out of curiosity, where?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Religion has always been subordinate to social changes - ironically, religions must adapt to new social environments or else face extinction.

An easy example of the flexibility of religion is that the same religion at the same time was used to justify slavery (in the slave-master's church) and preach revolt and condemn slavery (among slaves). Even after slavery, the same religion justified Jim-Crow and white power for some, while it was also being used to condemn Jim-Crow in the black churches.

If you look at the rise of the early bourgeois, they needed the reformation because they needed a society not based on perfect heavenly order where the earth didn't move and people couldn't change their social caste. Merchants needed a more scientific outlook and they needed a society where there was social mobility.

Now that capitalism rules everywhere, church establishments are more likely to be conservative and against ideas that challenge the new order under capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

The Bible is not meant to be taken literally. The Old Testament in particular comes from a culture that explained things through allegorical stories.

Besides at any rate, Christianity is defined by what Christians believe, not what the Bible says. Unless of course you believe that it really is a Holy Book mandated by God.

[Nulono]

There's points where a man gets on a mountain so high he can see the whole world, and it mentions the "firmament", part of an ancient three-tiered sky model (and the stars fall to the ground in the End Times).

[trivas7]

Pope John Paul II believed that evolution is a fact. How he reconciled this w/ his religion is beyond me, but people generally seem to able hold contradictory views at the same time.

[Bud Struggle]

Pope John Paul II believed that evolution is a fact. How he reconciled this w/ his religion is beyond me, but people generally seem to able hold contradictory views at the same time.

Pretty easy. The Bible is an allegory about how God enters the world and into out lives. The details of the Bible are a story meant to explain a higher truth. FYI, the Bible was interpreted from the earliest times as an allegory. The literal interpretation has faded in and out over the years depending on the mood of the readers. Right now it's the Fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. Most other Christian religions--especially Catholics-- don't.

[trivas7]

Pretty easy. The Bible is an allegory about how God enters the world and into out lives. The details of the Bible are a story meant to explain a higher truth. FYI, the Bible was interpreted from the earliest times as an allegory. The literal interpretation has faded in and out over the years depending on the mood of the readers. Right now it's the Fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. Most other Christian religions--especially Catholics-- don't.
Raised a Catholic I am a little aware of Catholic exegesis of the Bible. But anyone who understands (and believes in) evolutionary theory knows that religious explanations of "higher truths" are nonsense. In the same way and for the same reasons that Aquinas's attempt to prove that faith was reconcilable with reason, "higher truths" of religious allegory are bogus.

[Bud Struggle]

But anyone who understands (and believes in) evolutionary theory knows that religious explanations of "higher truths" are nonsense. In the same way and for the same reasons that Aquinas's attempt to prove that faith was reconcilable with reason, "higher truths" of religious allegory are bogus.

Why would you say that? Aquinas actually explains the interworkings of the Bible and faith quite well. He takes a somewhat irrational document and then applies a grid of rationality to explain a reaonable method of behavior for people.

You may not totally agree with his points about the interactions between god and man--but the rest of what he says about how humans should behave towards other humans is hugely advanced for its day. Actually just considering Thomism as a humanistic philosophy of life, it's quite a nice design for living in general.

[Decolonize The Left]

Pretty easy. The Bible is an allegory about how God enters the world and into out lives. The details of the Bible are a story meant to explain a higher truth. FYI, the Bible was interpreted from the earliest times as an allegory. The literal interpretation has faded in and out over the years depending on the mood of the readers. Right now it's the Fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. Most other Christian religions--especially Catholics-- don't.

But if the Bible isn't any reliable source of information, as you claim it is an allegory about God, then how can one 'know' whether or not one has the 'right' religion?

- August

[Bud Struggle]

But if the Bible isn't any reliable source of information, as you claim it is an allegory about God, then how can one 'know' whether or not one has the 'right' religion?

- August

Unfortunately there is no "knowing." It's a matter of faith. As to the Bible being a reliable source of information--it is, just not in a scientific sense. It's a good source of information on how to live one's life in a benevolent way. And granted it's not always easy from all the goings on in the Bible to see the pattern of that benevolence, but as I mentioned above to trivas--it's well systematized by Thomas Aquinas (and other) Catholic theologians.

[trivas7]

You may not totally agree with his points about the interactions between god and man--but the rest of what he says about how humans should behave towards other humans is hugely advanced for its day. Actually just considering Thomism as a humanistic philosophy of life, it's quite a nice design for living in general.
The burning and persecution of heretics and the subjugation of non-Christian peoples that Aquinas advocated for and supported is not my idea of progressive behavior, sorry.

[Bud Struggle]

The burning and persecution of heretics and the subjugation of non-Christian peoples that Aquinas advocated for and supported is not my idea of progressive behavior, sorry.

Again--in it's day it was a pretty decent way of proceeding. Those were the Dark Ages. But the same goes with Marx's racism not too long ago. Once those kinds of things are cleared up and we look at the universal brotherhood of all people instead of people that believe and look like us--you have something workable.

[trivas7]

Again--in it's day it was a pretty decent way of proceeding. Those were the Dark Ages. But the same goes with Marx's racism not too long ago. Once those kinds of things are cleared up and we look at the universal brotherhood of all people instead of people that believe and look like us--you have something workable.
Advocating burning someone to death on account of their lack of faith is not "a pretty decent way of proceeding", even by the standards of Medieval Europe. And if you're comparing this behavior to Marx's anti-Semitism, I just don't buy the comparison. Those kinds of religious things never get cleared up historically; religion remains a divisive and pernicious influence in human affairs.

[Decolonize The Left]

TomK, as a religious individual you surely advocate some acts as "good" and others as "bad" - i.e. you have a strong sense of deontological right/wrong. If this is the case (and I'm almost sure it is), I find you downplaying of atrocities to be not only hypocritical, but also highly disturbing.

As a Christian you should be assaulting these acts as entirely unacceptable and contrary to the message of Jesus - which was one of peace. Yet you sit here and claim that they were a "pretty decent way of proceeding." By what measure of decency? Certainly not a Christian one...

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Advocating burning someone to death on account of their lack of faith is not "a pretty decent way of proceeding", even by the standards of Medieval Europe. And if you're comparing this behavior to Marx's anti-Semitism, I just don't buy the comparison. Those kinds of religious things never get cleared up historically; religion remains a divisive and pernicious influence in human affairs.

We you misread me. You can pick out all sorts of things form origional authors that might be "unprogressive" in today's society. I was making that point about Marx. Clear away some of that misunderstanding and you can get a pretty cogent philosophy. Burning people at the steak was never at the heart of Thomistic philosophy just as anti-Semitism wasn't at the hear of Marxist philisophy (though Stalin probably killed a lot more Jews than the Catholic Church ever did.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_antisemitism

[Edit] and this:

JOHN KEEGAN, A HISTORY OF WARFARE:


A post-Roman Europe without the Roman Church would have been a barbarous place indeed; the remnants of Roman civil institutions were too weak to provide a framework for a reconstitution of order, and in the absence of disciplined armies, the whole continent might have fallen back below the 'military horizon' into endemic conflict over territory and tribal rights. . . .

[trivas7]

Clear away some of that misunderstanding and you can get a pretty cogent philosophy. Burning people at the steak was never at the heart of Thomistic philosophy just as anti-Semitism wasn't at the hear of Marxist philisophy.

Anti-semitism was not part of Marx's philosophy at all, as was the purity and justification of Christian doctrine for Aquinas. You want to cherry-pick what was and what wasn't important to Thomas, burning heretics is the logical conclusion to Aquinas' entire medieval worldview.


A post-Roman Europe without the Roman Church would have been a barbarous place indeed; the remnants of Roman civil institutions were too weak to provide a framework for a reconstitution of order, and in the absence of disciplined armies, the whole continent might have fallen back below the 'military horizon' into endemic conflict over territory and tribal rights. . . .The good speaker has no way to know this, he speaks as he were privy to an alternate history I am not aware of. This is mere Catholic propaganda of the grossest kind.

[Bud Struggle]

Anti-semitism was not part of Marx's philosophy at all, as was the purity and justification of Christian doctrine for Aquinas. You want to cherry-pick what was and what wasn't important to Thomas, burning heretics is the logical conclusion to Aquinas' entire medieval worldview.
Just as killing the Bourgeoise is the logical conclusion to Marx's worldview? Well the Thomists seemed to have given up their blood lust--how about you Marxists? Seriously, I don't believe Aquinas ever said that non-believers should be killed. If you could point me to some text I'd be much abiged.


The good speaker has no way to know this, he speaks as he were privy to an alternate history I am not aware of. This is mere Catholic propaganda of the grossest kind.

John Keegan is probably one of the most well know and respected historians of the 20th Century.

http://www.militaryreadinglist.com/authors/K/john-keegan.htm

His The Face of Battle is on of the best books on the personalization of warfare ever written.

[Demogorgon]

But if the Bible isn't any reliable source of information, as you claim it is an allegory about God, then how can one 'know' whether or not one has the 'right' religion?

- August
There is an argument that can be made that as God can be seen as infinite then there are a multitude of different ways of experiencing it. Therefore all or most religions are correct and simply experiencing God in different ways.

I'm not arguing this line incidentally, I don't believe in God, but it is a pretty popular theory in philosophy of religion and gets around the problem of how you can claim a religion is correct when God is supposed to be beyond human understanding. Of course it doesn't work if you want tpo claim your religion is the "one true faith".


A post-Roman Europe without the Roman Church would have been a barbarous place indeed; the remnants of Roman civil institutions were too weak to provide a framework for a reconstitution of order, and in the absence of disciplined armies, the whole continent might have fallen back below the 'military horizon' into endemic conflict over territory and tribal rights. . . .
It should be pointed out that post-Roman Europe with the Church was also a pretty barbarous place. The Church neither increased nor decreased the barbarity, it was just one of the many enthusiastic participants.

[trivas7]

Just as killing the Bourgeoise is the logical conclusion to Marx's worldview? Well the Thomists seemed to have given up their blood lust--how about you Marxists? Seriously, I don't believe Aquinas ever said that non-believers should be killed. If you could point me to some text I'd be much abiged.

Aquinas opined that for the good of Christendom rulers have the right to put heretics -- not the non-baptized non-believer -- to the flame. I haven't the inclination to cite source (Perhaps Sir Keegan could oblige you).

[Bud Struggle]

Aquinas opined that for the good of Christendom rulers have the right to put heretics -- not the non-baptized non-believer -- to the flame.

Well at least they were honest about their intentions. It reminds me of what Trotsky said when he was president of the Petrograd Soviet: " We shall conduct the work of the Petrograd Soviet in a spirit of lawfulnessand of full freedom for all parties. He head of the Presidium will never lend itself to the oppression of the minority."

But when Sukhanov reminded him of that three years after the Bolsheviks took power Trotsky became silent for a while and then said, "Those were good days"

Sukhanov, Zapiski.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Even if we go with the non-fundamentalist Christian view that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, Christians can't believe in evolution because either God is omnipotent and has always been or God evolved from something, if the latter is the case then she isn't really God; I mean, who knows, another god might evolve. After this point, Christianity only exists as a cultural and social entity; it's not a science so don't expect it to make sense.

[JazzRemington]

Interestingly enough, some Creationists believe in a form of evolution.

Basically, Moses moved 2 of each kind of animal on the arch. When the flooding stopped and the world returned to normal, the animals slowly multiplied and spread out to other parts of the world. The initial 2 animals can be considered "pure" kinds of their species, so when they began to reproduce across successive generations, changes began to occur and they began to "degrade" to the point where it narrowed down the environments where they could survive. To wit, it's not that the animals became better adapted to their particular environments, it's more like they just degraded to the point where they couldn't survive in other environments.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Created_Kinds

[trivas7]

Richard Dawkins puts it well in "The God Delusion" where he posits the God Hyposthesis and its rational alternative:



I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to discover for which of these alternatives evidence exists.

[trivas7]

Richard Dawkins lays out the alternatives well in "The God Delusion" where he posits the God Hyposthesis and its rational alternative:



I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to discover for which of these alternatives evidence exists.

[Decolonize The Left]

There is an argument that can be made that as God can be seen as infinite then there are a multitude of different ways of experiencing it. Therefore all or most religions are correct and simply experiencing God in different ways.

God cannot be seen as infinite - god can only be posited as infinite. I make semantic quips because our language is vitally important to our struggle. And yes, you are correct that by making this part up, religions are able to avoid declaring a 'correctness' of any one over another.


I'm not arguing this line incidentally, I don't believe in God, but it is a pretty popular theory in philosophy of religion and gets around the problem of how you can claim a religion is correct when God is supposed to be beyond human understanding. Of course it doesn't work if you want tpo claim your religion is the "one true faith".

Noted.

- August

[welshboy]

Evolution is an assumption. Do we "assume everyone should assume evolution," ad infinity?
Evolution is a fact. It happens and the theory of evolution explains why/how.
One does not merely assume that evolution occurs, one looks at the world and sees it occurring.



From what basis should we assume preference towards atheism will be universal, upon clear thinking?

From the basis that belief in the irrational leads to irrational acts. That tolerance for irrational beliefs leads to irrational acts.

[Robert]

I this a private brawl or can anyone get in on it?

Regarding Aquinas, there's no doubt he favored excommunication and
yes, death for unrepentant heretics, this for the "good" of the church and as deserved by the heretic. http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/aquinas.htm

This to me does not undercut a belief that the Bible provides a good and useful code of conduct any more than a study of Stalin discredits Marxism. Both were evil, as I define it, in their manifest desire to control their fellow man's thoughts and actions.

A harder question for the Christian faithful is whether the Bible provides the only legitimate code of conduct. There are plenty of Chinese who follow Christ without knowing very much if anything about Jesus. I imagine that many in the countryside never heard of him.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Many christians now believe in evolution but i dont understand because evolution undermines genesis which is the "creation story".
Evolution only undermines the Bible if you believe that every part of the Bible must be taken entirely literally, which is an idea that developed very late in the history of Christianity. The first Christians did not have the Bible - at least not in its present-day format - because the New Testament had not been written yet. Over the following decades and centuries, the New Testament was written and a general consensus developed among Christians as to which writings should be considered part of the Bible. At the same time, however, oral traditions continued to play an important role in Christianity, and the Church did not rely on the Bible alone for its teachings.

The idea that the Bible is the complete, definitive, literal Word of God only arose with the Protestant Reformation, about 1500 years after Christ.

Furthermore, the Bible was never supposedly handed down from God to some human prophet in any form - unlike, say, the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon. The Bible itself does not claim that it should all be taken literally, and some parts say the exact opposite.