Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Your notion of the sort of "basic common sense" that leads to "real conclusions" is clearly in opposition to that which Christians are using.

I don't care. It's their religion meaning it could mean anything they want it to mean. I'm only interested in using the scripture to explain itself.

This show that Jesus didn't send himself, he was sent BY.............. THE ONE WHO SENT HIM. TA DA!

Christians will simply tell you that both things are true; that God essentially sent Himself to play the role of the one who was sent.

Which is exactly why i'm not interested in their explanations. It is complete nonsense in every other sense but their own.

Craig talks about this multi-aspect nature of God at length in the many articles he has written on the divinity of Jesus (some of which I have linked you to).

In case you didn't notice, he's a Christian as well, so the same applies.

And if God is indeed omnipotent there's really nothing to prevent any of this from being true.

In that case they should just accept what is said without interpreting the words in such a way that suit their worldview. But they're not interested in that. Also if God is Omnipotent, then every other scripture can be accepted on the same level. But they're not interested in that. That would be too easy.

Further, Christians will also simply point you back to all the verses that they insist clearly demonstrate that Jesus is God and explain that one of the key elements involved in the correct interpretation of scripture is bringing verses to bear on each other. For example, here is a commentary by a theologian (from the "Reformation Study Bible" by R.C. Sproul) on the scriptural matter in question:

Thanks for the links but I'll stick to the everyday meaning of ''word'' and take it from there.

On the contrary, Christian theologians typically have to possess of a high degree of expertise when it comes to Biblical scripture. I mean just take a look at R.C. Sproul above. Here's a man who has himself been teaching from the Bible for nearly 50 years, and the foundation of his Reformation Study Bible is a compilation of thousands of study notes from over 50 distinguished biblical scholars. And Biblical scholars are, by definition, experts when it comes to Biblical scripture. Further, you just need to take a look at William Lane Craig's resume to see just how deeply he has been buried in Biblical studies over the years. And guess what? These experts affirm the scriptural basis of Christian theology.

As I said they are expert in their Christianity, and in this way they have become expert at interpreting it from a Christian pov.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

...Is there a conflict between science and GOD? I think not..

There is. Scientific principles reject unnecessary assumptions.

 

[Rav]

I don't care. It's their religion meaning it could mean anything they want it to mean. I'm only interested in using the scripture to explain itself.

I have been focusing, pretty much entirely, on what biblical scholars have been saying, along with the theologians who use their resources. And using scripture to explain itself is exactly what they do!

In case you didn't notice, he's a Christian as well, so the same applies.

By that logic your own comments are invalid because you are not a Christian. I mean regardless of what you theists are calling yourselves you all have your own particular epistemologies and the act of trying to invalidate a position by pointing to the existence of an underlying epistemology simply serves to call your own into question as well.

In other words (and again): pot, kettle, black

In that case they should just accept what is said without interpreting the words in such a way that suit their worldview.

LOL. The irony just goes on and on!

Thanks for the links but I'll stick to the everyday meaning of ''word'' and take it from there.

And so does the willful ignorance...

As I said they are expert in their Christianity, and in this way they have become expert at interpreting it from a Christian pov.

There's no way for you to conclusively demonstrate that any of them allowed their preconceived notions to determine how they interpreted scripture. But it's certainly not impossible. Again, though, this is yet another criticism that can simply be turned right back around on you, so it's ultimately useless to your cause.

 

[sculptor]

There is. Scientific principles reject unnecessary assumptions.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

It really depends on your view of the motive force behind the mask "GOD"
If all you see is that mask, then, for you your statement is accurate.
For some others, however, it is the simplest descriptor of an understanding of that knowable patterned force.
And, for the furtherance of that understanding, science is a valuable tool.
So, there is no more conflict than between my hand and this keyboard.

 

[spidergoat]

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

It really depends on your view of the motive force behind the mask "GOD"
If all you see is that mask, then, for you your statement is accurate.
For some others, however, it is the simplest descriptor of an understanding of that knowable patterned force.
And, for the furtherance of that understanding, science is a valuable tool.
So, there is no more conflict than between my hand and this keyboard.

No, it's not negotiable, science requires the rejection of unnecessary assumptions, which is what God is. Go ahead and be religious and think God is the motive force behind everything, but that violates the principles of science.

Science is the systematic study of the observations made of the natural world with our senses and scientific instruments.

By contrast, all major religions teach that humans possess an additional "inner" sense that allows us to access a realm lying beyond the visible world -- a divine, transcendent reality we call the supernatural. If it does not involve the transcendent, it is not religion. [source]​

 

[sculptor]

No, it's not negotiable, science requires the rejection of unnecessary assumptions, which is what God is. Go ahead and be religious and think God is the motive force behind everything, but that violates the principles of science.

Science is the systematic study of the observations made of the natural world with our senses and scientific instruments.

By contrast, all major religions teach that humans possess an additional "inner" sense that allows us to access a realm lying beyond the visible world -- a divine, transcendent reality we call the supernatural. If it does not involve the transcendent, it is not religion. [source]​

How is it that you became an expert on the teachings of "all major religions"?

 

[billvon]

There is. Scientific principles reject unnecessary assumptions.

Why does that create a conflict between science and God?

Popular fiction abounds with unnecessary assumptions, but it would be silly to say that popular fiction and science are "in conflict." Indeed, plenty of scientists read fiction.

 

[spidergoat]

Why does that create a conflict between science and God?

Popular fiction abounds with unnecessary assumptions, but it would be silly to say that popular fiction and science are "in conflict." Indeed, plenty of scientists read fiction.

The key word is "fiction".

 

[spidergoat]

How is it that you became an expert on the teachings of "all major religions"?

We aren't talking about the ways in which one can be religious, we are talking about whether the idea of god (which, by the way, fits the above description of religion) is compatible with science. It's just not, because there is no evidence of it. There are scientists who are religious, but they are not applying scientific principles to their religion.

Also ad hominum.

 

[sculptor]

not ad hominum.

You made the statement; "all major religions teach" which is a claim to an expert opinion of what "all major religions teach".
I was pointing out that you have a limited and innacurate understanding of the concept "GOD".
And, you are drawing conclusions from your own "idea of god", which are, most likely, not shared by many with a different concept of the "idea of god".

Perhaps, you have something specific which you would like to discuss?

 

[billvon]

The key word is "fiction".

So where's the conflict?

 

[wegs]

I'm glad science can't "prove" God in a sense. Then, it wouldn't be faith at all...it would be science.
And then I guess science itself could be its own religion.
Hmmm!

 

[wegs]

@ spidergoat;

I think what you feel if I may say, from the snippets you've posted on here, is that you don't feel "faith" is necessary if it can't be proven. If something can't be seen and proven, you feel it's silly or nonsense. And that's fine. But, it would be better to defend that side of it than argue that God is fiction. Spirituality to a believer is a real thing. Spirituality to you, is meaningless. Again, that's fine but I think that is more where I sense you coming from when we have discussed "religion."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it hit me when billvon asked you where the conflict is? The sticking point for you it seems is more that it bothers you that people "need" God, because you don't. It's almost as if you feel believers can't accept what you accept or won't because science and the tangible here and now, is all that "should" matter. I'm not trying to assume your position; I'm just guessing based on observation with these topics, here.

Just my take.

 

[billvon]

And then I guess science itself could be its own religion.

Science makes as bad a religion as the Bible makes a science book.

 

[wegs]

Science makes as bad a religion as the Bible makes a science book.

Haha yep!

What's funny about these exchanges here is man has been arguing over "religion" since the Paleolithic era; historians believe that Shamanism was the first "prelude" to religion...it dominated the culture back then. But certainly there were skeptics then too and they probably all sat around debating similar things as we are today. :shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

not ad hominum.

You made the statement; "all major religions teach" which is a claim to an expert opinion of what "all major religions teach".
I was pointing out that you have a limited and innacurate understanding of the concept "GOD".
And, you are drawing conclusions from your own "idea of god", which are, most likely, not shared by many with a different concept of the "idea of god".

Perhaps, you have something specific which you would like to discuss?

I didn't make the statement, it's something from the physicist Victor Stenger. Did you read the link? My point is that is doesn't matter what flavor of god you want to talk about, if it's unnecessary to explain the universe, it is not compatible with proper use of the scientific method. It's something different than science. It's not rational to believe it.

So where's the conflict?

Believing in something that is scientifically unnecessary is not compatible with science. One doesn't believe in fiction.

@ spidergoat;

I think what you feel if I may say, from the snippets you've posted on here, is that you don't feel "faith" is necessary if it can't be proven. If something can't be seen and proven, you feel it's silly or nonsense. And that's fine. But, it would be better to defend that side of it than argue that God is fiction. Spirituality to a believer is a real thing. Spirituality to you, is meaningless. Again, that's fine but I think that is more where I sense you coming from when we have discussed "religion."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it hit me when billvon asked you where the conflict is? The sticking point for you it seems is more that it bothers you that people "need" God, because you don't.

Just my take.

Faith doesn't exist on it's own, I'm sure you mean faith in some concept. It's fine if you choose to have faith in a concept, even if it isn't proven, but you can't claim that such an endeavor is compatible with science. It's the exact opposite of science. It's my opinion that guesses about the nature of the universe, including whether god exists, can be considered hypotheses only. But that is not how the religious treat them. An hypothesis should be rejected if unnecessary or if contradicted by evidence. According to sculptor, there is nothing that would contradict god's existence. That makes it unfalsifiable, another reason it can be immediately dismissed.

I've said before that spirituality in the sense of exploring what it means to be human and our relationship with the world and consciousness is not frivolous. I don't think it involves spirits, but that is a semantic complaint. If belief in the supernatural is part of your spiritual practice, I would never interfere with your right to do that, but you must know that it's most likely nonsense. If there is a spiritual benefit to such a practice, it is in spite of it's non-real nature and not because of it. Zen Buddhists feel many of the same revelatory experiences that are reported with religion, and they don't require belief in anything supernatural, so I think that proves it's unnecessary, even an impediment. It's certainly an impediment to understanding the material world outside of one's brain.

 

[Robittybob1]

I'm glad science can't "prove" God in a sense. Then, it wouldn't be faith at all...it would be science.
And then I guess science itself could be its own religion.
Hmmm!

That is a good argument. In fact we could say science has proven God already, but they don't want to admit it. What was prior to the Big Bang? Since there doesn't seem to be any logical explanation to account for it, they are virtually admitting that it must have been an act of God.
They might not say it but I'd like to know what goes through their minds.

Then science would be a religion, which it virtually is now, for anyone saying something against Einstein gets excommunicated.

There would still be the problem with faith, for it is one thing for God's hand to be initiating the BB but does anyone from the Heavenlies meddle in day to day affairs of these dust particles called humans?

 

[spidergoat]

That is a good argument. In fact we could say science has proven God already, but they don't want to admit it. What was prior to the Big Bang? Since there doesn't seem to be any logical explanation to account for it, they are virtually admitting that it must have been an act of God.
They might not say it but I'd like to know what goes through their minds.

Then science would be a religion, which it virtually is now, for anyone saying something against Einstein gets excommunicated.

There would still be the problem with faith, for it is one thing for God's hand to be initiating the BB but does anyone from the Heavenlies meddle in day to day affairs of these dust particles called humans?

That is not what cosmologists say. In fact there are several plausible naturalistic explanations for the BB. One of which is the Inflationary Bi-verse model. I could show you a diagram. And Einstein has been contradicted on some things by quantum electrodynamics, so that's also false. Additionally, not knowing something is not at all the same thing as acknowledging a god, as if the concept can be shoehorned in wherever there is a gap in knowledge. This is called the god of the gaps fallacy.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

I have been focusing, pretty much entirely, on what biblical scholars have been saying, along with the theologians who use their resources. And using scripture to explain itself is exactly what they do!

I'm not interested in religious interpretations of the Bible, they are biased toward their particular brand of religion. Get over it dude!

In case you didn't notice, he's a Christian as well, so the same applies.

By that logic your own comments are invalid because you are not a Christian. I mean regardless of what you theists are calling yourselves you all have your own particular epistemologies and the act of trying to invalidate a position by pointing to the existence of an underlying epistemology simply serves to call your own into question as well.

No. I'm not biased toward any particular religious ideology . I use the words that are there to come to a conclusion. They don't.

LOL. The irony just goes on and on!

Where is the irony?

Thanks for the links but I'll stick to the everyday meaning of ''word'' and take it from there.

And so does the willful ignorance...

I'm not sure what your response means, but I'll take it as you think I'm being ''willfully ignorant'' by accepting that ''Word'', means word in the way that everyone understands it to mean.

Can you explain why I'm being ''willfully'' ignorant?

There's no way for you to conclusively demonstrate that any of them allowed their preconceived notions to determine how they interpreted scripture. But it's certainly not impossible. Again, though, this is yet another criticism that can simply be turned right back around on you, so it's ultimately useless to your cause.

If one has not been programmed into the religion, one can demonstrate with ridiculous amounts of ease.
Sorry but you're programming is still in effect.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

That is not what cosmologists say. In fact there are several plausible naturalistic explanations for the BB.

Ultimately they have to be contradictions.
Something bringing itself into existence is a gross violation of common sense.
It is clearly fueled by one's lack of belief in God.

Additionally, not knowing something is not at all the same thing as acknowledging a god, as if the concept can be shoehorned in wherever there is a gap in knowledge. This is called the god of the gaps fallacy.

At what point would you accept that God is the origin of all material manifestations?

jan.