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

[Rav]

Wegs, I asked you some important questions in my previous response, and once again you have avoided them, while continuing to ask more questions.

The hypocrisy is strong with this one too. Very strong.

Or you tailor make evolution to be something that God intended but had no control over meaning that God is not a Supreme Being, but is something like a demi-god.

Another example of willful ignorance. If you had bothered to pay attention to any of the resources offered in this thread (and others before it that you have been involved in) you would know that a "hand of divine guidance" is perfectly within the scope of theistic evolution.

Further, you've yet to address the question of how God's omnipotence could ever be diminished based solely on the state of our knowledge of the created order.

 

[Rav]

And so starts the decent into ad hominems.

Which invariably follows your own decent into stunning degrees of hypocrisy and delusion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grumpy,

I take the Father's word as to his beliefs, maybe you should take his word about that huge, unthoughtful blind spot you have concerning scientific knowledge, hmmm?

What ''word as to his beliefs'' are you referring to?

Will you recognize that explanation of the evidence if and when it surfaces?
Or will you be saying ''When evidence is found that makes that the most likely explanation'' till the day you croak?

Scientists actually look, so yes, IF such evidence appears, I will recognize it. 60+ years so far, no such evidence.

How will you recognize it?

If ''evidence'' of God becomes apparent to scientists (major oxymoron), it will be natural evidence, so how and why would YOU attribute anything found within nature, to God?

Mankind and his accumulated knowledge. As opposed to his accumulated , supernatural, superstitious explanations.

Blah! Blah! Blah!......

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

for at least yourself, yes. you don't need to explain anything to me, per se. but, we are on a forum where discussion is the point, and so, when someone says...'I don't believe in evolution,' there should at least be a reason as to why. You have said why, it doesn't make sense to you. But, then, what is the alternative? Is it Scripture for you?

There doesn't have to be an alternative, because it isn't an important issue.

Everyone decides ultimately, what to believe. If the Bible didn't exist, what would you believe? If you're being given answers by science, proof by science...would you just throw your hands up and say...I don't know how we got here. Even with evidence? If so, why?

Firstly, the Bible isn't the only scripture. But if scriptures didn't exist, would science (as we know it) exist?

The point is...that we seem to be having a circular discussion about whether the theory of evolution is plausible, as opposed to the crux of the thread really being about if people believe someone can be both, a believer and a Darwinist.

Yet you're the one asking me for alternative explanations to darwinian ideas, despite me saying they are not important in the reality of life and day to day living. I have tried to move the discussion on by trying to get from you a clear picture of who and what God is, to you, which you avoid.

Maybe you recognize that in order to accept both ideas, you have to compromise God's status?

To me, I find importance (and fascination) in having an understanding of where mankind came from and where it's heading.

How is it that you believe in God, but every single scripture which charts the beginnings of mankind, Darwin's ideas are no where to be found? So again, who and what is God, why you can believe mere human ideas over every single scripture? Don't you think it is possible for God to relay such knowledge to his creatures?

The evidence (not only the explanations for it) seems overwhelmingly plausible.

That is the most famous atheist cliche.
Can you come up with something that actually means something?

Do you accept other scientific theories? If so, based on what you say here, why?
''Theories'', while they all differ and support different findings, are all born from the same methods as to how they became theories.
The theory of evolution is no different in that regard.

I accept what makes sense to me.

Everybody doesn't believe it. Many don't.

Correct. But the mainstream western media likes to make us thing that almost everybody does.

But of the many who don't, they don't know why they don't.

And of the little few who do, many of them don't know why they do.

Or they feel that in order to accept it, they mustn't be faithful believers then.

And there's a reason for that, namely it contradicts God. Which brings us to the OP.

sorry, aware of what?

The sub-conscious.

I don't require a personal view, to believe it.
My belief in God is a personal view.

So you believe darwinian idea's blindly?
To answer that you must tear yourself away from the ''overwhelming evidence'' cliche.

If your belief in God is ''a personal view'' then you're admitting that you give characteristics to God, not that you accept the God's characteristics of Himself. Do you think that such an exercise constitutes ''theism''?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

More utter bullshit. You are biased toward your own religious ideology, and as I've explained before this ideology is the platform from which you declare that Christian's are interpreting the Bible incorrectly, or that Muslim's are interpreting the Qur'an incorrectly, or that theists like `Abdu'l-Bahá (the founder of the Bahá'í faith) are incorrect in their assertions that evolutionary theory is compatible with theism, or that the Deists are incorrect in their assertion that scripture is not divinely inspired, or any other claim you wish to make about metaphysics, theology, theologians, religious people, or pretty much anything that comes to bear on any of these things.

It is the very act of making claims like these that reveals your ideology, and since it is an ideology that primarily relates to God and His relationship with creation, and since it puts you in conflict with the ideologies of other theists, it is quite clearly (and by definition) a religious ideology.

So aside from this pathetic drivel, what particular religious ideology am I biased towards?

Honestly, I generally don't call religious people delusional. But to be in denial about this is the very definition of it.

I don't recall saying I was ''religious''. Is this what you do, build straw men, so you can feel good when you knock them down. Stick to the points I make, and don't make shit up.

The irony lies in the fact that you are interpreting the Bible to suit your worldview. You can deny it all you want, but to do so is to keep embracing that delusion.

Accusations! Accusations! Yet I don't see one example.

Because you're clearly not reading all the links I'm giving you, and you've been exhibiting this sort of laziness not only throughout the course of this discussion, but many others.

What? More empty accusations?

In this most recent instance you clearly only bothered to follow the first link and thus failed to address the content of all the others, which collectively constituted a study of multiple verses.

Same as above.

Are you running scared?

Some housekeeping:

Do you accept that a Christian who embraces the sort of reading of the Bible that leads to standard Christian theology is indeed a genuine theist as long as their faith in God is properly genuine?

Grow some balls and answer the question.

It is a stupid question. A question by someone who clearly doesn't understand what it means to be theist.
If someone claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, but contradict his teaching, ie, the Pope who accepts darwinian ideas, despite what Jesus say's, what is their position.

You work it out.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

More utter bullshit. You are biased toward your own religious ideology, and as I've explained before this ideology is the platform from which you declare that Christian's are interpreting the Bible incorrectly, or that Muslim's are interpreting the Qur'an incorrectly, or that theists like `Abdu'l-Bahá (the founder of the Bahá'í faith) are incorrect in their assertions that evolutionary theory is compatible with theism, or that the Deists are incorrect in their assertion that scripture is not divinely inspired, or any other claim you wish to make about metaphysics, theology, theologians, religious people, or pretty much anything that comes to bear on any of these things.

It is the very act of making claims like these that reveals your ideology, and since it is an ideology that primarily relates to God and His relationship with creation, and since it puts you in conflict with the ideologies of other theists, it is quite clearly (and by definition) a religious ideology.

So aside this pathetic drivel, what particular religious ideology am I biased towards?

Honestly, I generally don't call religious people delusional. But to be in denial about this is the very definition of it.

I don't recall saying I was ''religious''. Is this what you do, build straw men, so you can feel good when you knock them down. Stick to the points I make, and don't make shit up.

The irony lies in the fact that you are interpreting the Bible to suit your worldview. You can deny it all you want, but to do so is to keep embracing that delusion.

Accusations! Accusations! Yet I don't see one example.

Because you're clearly not reading all the links I'm giving you, and you've been exhibiting this sort of laziness not only throughout the course of this discussion, but many others.

What? More empty accusations?

In this most recent instance you clearly only bothered to follow the first link and thus failed to address the content of all the others, which collectively constituted a study of multiple verses.

Same as above.

Are you running scared?

Some housekeeping:

Do you accept that a Christian who embraces the sort of reading of the Bible that leads to standard Christian theology is indeed a genuine theist as long as their faith in God is properly genuine?

Grow some balls and answer the question.

It is a stupid question. A question by someone who clearly doesn't understand what it means to be theist.
If someone claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, but contradict his teaching, ie, the Pope who accepts darwinian ideas, despite what Jesus say's, what is their position.

You work it out.

jan.

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

Post like an idiotic troll and you will be treated like the idiotic troll your posts reveal.

Grumpy

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena

Post like an idiotic troll and you will be treated like the idiotic troll your posts reveal.

Grumpy

Attack me then you don't have to answer my questions...

How will you recognize it?

If ''evidence'' of God becomes apparent to scientists (major oxymoron), it will be natural evidence, so how and why would YOU attribute anything found within nature, to God.



jan.

 

[wynn]

If ''evidence'' of God becomes apparent to scientists (major oxymoron), it will be natural evidence, so how and why would YOU attribute anything found within nature, to God.

By having the insight that nature has its source in God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

By having the insight that nature has its source in God.

That would suggest that theism is the starting point of reality.

jan.

 

[wynn]

It's a standard Christian reply to "What is evidence of God?" to make a sweeping gesture with the open hand, pointing at everything.

Anyway, it's a matter of definitions one works with. Many atheists sustain their atheism by having their own definitions of God, definitions that no theist has ever proposed ...

 

[iceaura]

Here are the cliffs as I understand them:

1) Jan admitted to not accepting the theory of evolution because he said it doesn't make sense

But that does not answer the question of why Jan does not accept the theory of evolution. It "admits" nothing. It conceals the admission he should make, which is that he does not understand Darwinian theory.

And because it includes the implicit claim that Jan has identified some aspect of the theory that he has evaluated and found lacking in sense, it is a lie. He has done no such thing - he has no argument against the sense of any aspect of Darwinian evolution, and no alternative explanation of any of the phenomena Darwinian theory explains. That's why, as I pointed out, he won't post them.

2) Jan, I think (?) believes that Scripture points to the origin of man (could be seen as an alternative, to evo, no?)
3) I thanked him based on #1 and #2
4) I have no desire to shame him or anyone

He will treat you with contempt, as he has, as long as you allow him to. My prediction is that thanking him for lying to you and disparaging your motives as well as your posting will not benefit you in your dealings with Jan - gratitude is not in his repertoire.

The reason this thread has gone as long as it has ...is because many here allowed the discussion to spiral downward into arguments and straw men for and against evolution. Jan doesn't care about evolution, honestly.

The only thing Jan cares about is slandering unbelievers according to his interpretation of the Bible. The thread started out at the bottom, with Jan. And there have been no strawman arguments "for evolution". But what should the response be - just lock any thread he starts?

 

[wegs]

Jan:

In your above replies to me, I can see now that you don't believe a "theist" can be an authentic theist and also believe in the theory of evolution. We're getting somewhere.

I will respond later to your replies, and I appreciate them because it shows the intent of the thread. The merry go round debates about what evolution is and why it is, gets us nowhere.

One thing to ask of you: you state above that you basically don't need an alternative to evolution because it's "not an important matter." Where we (mankind) came from..,how we arrived here...doesn't matter to you? Just wondering why? And I'm not trying to sway your opinion, but I've never heard this reply in these types of discussions. How man evolved is important for how we move into the future. Understanding biology comes from a natural desire to look at where we "came from."

Anyway, I'm just curious as to why you feel it's unimportant.

 

[wegs]

Actually iceaura, I'm getting the sense that Jan's intent is to get believers to see that they can't be in both "camps," so to speak. I'm thinking Jan doesn't care to appeal to "unbelievers" one way or the other.

Can't speak for Jan, but his replies to me are starting to paint a clearer picture, in this regard.

 

[spidergoat]

It's a standard Christian reply to "What is evidence of God?" to make a sweeping gesture with the open hand, pointing at everything.

Anyway, it's a matter of definitions one works with. Many atheists sustain their atheism by having their own definitions of God, definitions that no theist has ever proposed ...

Please, not no theist. We are working with mainstream definitions. It's theists who make up their own god so they don't have to answer for the one described in sacred texts, which hardly anyone would want to believe.

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

It's a standard Christian reply to "What is evidence of God?" to make a sweeping gesture with the open hand, pointing at everything.

Evidence of some form of supernatural agency(call him/her/it/them what you will)would be unambiguous evidence of a clear violation of the natural laws our knowledge tell us exist. If what we see does have a natural explanation, god becomes unnecessary, redundant if your concept of god cannot work within the natural framework(which he presumably set up in the first place). Otherwise your god is a screw up, never quite getting anything right, having to fudge every point to achieve his objectives. A deist's god said "Let there be Light", the Big Bang happened and everything proceeded from there to here according the the natural law he set up at the beginning, a much more capable god, unlimited by the opinions of those who wish to dictate how he must have done it. Personally, I think we create our gods in our own image, they always seem limited to using only the technology known in their day or they use some vague magic. In Roman times the gods served much the same function that soap operas and romcoms do today, some(the fertility goddesses and others)were very entertaining, indeed!

Grumpy

 

[Write4U]

I have always smiled at the ease of declaring "God works in mysterious ways". Perhaps we should adapt this tenet in science. "The Universe works in mysterious ways". There, the entire problem of existence solved! It's all just mysterious, what more is there to know?

 

[wegs]

I have always smiled at the ease of declaring "God works in mysterious ways". Perhaps we should adapt this tenet in science. "The Universe works in mysterious ways". There, the entire problem of existence solved! It's all just mysterious, what more is there to know?

I like that! (you'd be surprised how that might catch on)

 

[iceaura]

In your above replies to me, I can see now that you don't believe a "theist" can be an authentic theist and also believe in the theory of evolution. We're getting somewhere.

You aren't. He stated that, plainly and in so many words, right at the beginning. You are still there - you aren't getting anywhere else.

Actually iceaura, I'm getting the sense that Jan's intent is to get believers to see that they can't be in both "camps," so to speak. I'm thinking Jan doesn't care to appeal to "unbelievers" one way or the other.

Jan does not understand Darwinian evolutionary theory - actually, it's worse than that: he willfully rejects its accurate presentation, and insists on misrepresenting it. His description of "both camps", so to speak, is then a twisted and ugly invention, with an agenda: slandering unbelievers, thereby coercing the vulnerable to frame their choice as between that repetitiously slandered out-group and Jan's version of fundie Christian belief - which he keeps attractive partly by keeping it vague, deliberately refusing to present it for examination.

He is not engaged in persuasion, argument, "appeal", or anything of the kind, of or to anyone - if he were, he would answer your questions at least, no? He will troll you around as long as you attempt honest discussion with him, just as he has so far (none of your questions fairly treated or answered, continual deflection rather than straightforward response). The agenda is creation and defense of a pocket of religious fanaticism, by systematically slandering the outside world (the way dust bunnies are created, by kicking around all the dust that isn't in the bunny).

There are two or three posters here like him, essentially trolling around looking for opportunities to lie and bully and run people in circles, and they are Abrahamic fundies. That is one source of religion's image on this forum.

Now there was an issue in the OP, of whether a Darwinist could hold a belief in God. The question immediately becomes the nature of the God necessary - since Darwinian theory is plain and explicitly laid out, adjustment of conflict happens on the God side of the balance. And so we see that it seems likely there exist ways of holding belief in an entity or category most people would agree was a God that do not require one to discard basic aspects of reality. The discussion then moves to what such entities would be like - or it could, if allowed.

 

[wegs]

Firstly, the Bible isn't the only scripture. But if scriptures didn't exist, would science (as we know it) exist?

''The Bible isn't the only Scripture''...are you speaking of Gnostic Gospels? Or another holy book?
If Scriptures didn't exist...yes, science would exist.

Yet you're the one asking me for alternative explanations to darwinian ideas, despite me saying they are not important in the reality of life and day to day living. I have tried to move the discussion on by trying to get from you a clear picture of who and what God is, to you, which you avoid.

I cannot explain in mere words 'who' God is to me. I don't believe he is a jealous, petty Ogre as the OT would have us believe...and even in parts of the NT, he is depicted this way. I believe him to be the Creator. Unfathomable, yet fair. I think that many get caught up in...'if' there is a God, there would be no pain in the world.' Not necessarily. He may have wanted things to unravel as they have. The Adam and Eve story is nice and sterile, and it seems polite, when describing God. But, it isn't a true story. It is often the story that believers cling to because they themselves can't accept evolution. I'm not saying this is you, but in having similar conversations with other believers, they wrestle with the idea of evolution. But, they don't wrestle with talking snakes, and a magic apple? :bugeye:

Often times, it isn't so much that people believe the Bible, as much as they don't question it. They would rather go through the motions, than explore something that could cause them to question their faith. That's been my observations, anyway.

Maybe you recognize that in order to accept both ideas, you have to compromise God's status?

When I came to the realization that the Bible's version of the creation story, was in itself 'created,' I definitely had to rethink what my beliefs were. But, after journeying through some of that, and this was a few years back now, I've come to a place of peace with believing that a 'God' could very well have created all of this, as I've always believed. I don't feel I need to choose, and I don't look at God as 'less sovereign,' because I believe in evolution. Not to sound trite, but it was very free-ing, when I embraced evolution.

How is it that you believe in God, but every single scripture which charts the beginnings of mankind, Darwin's ideas are no where to be found? So again, who and what is God, why you can believe mere human ideas over every single scripture?

The early church clergy had no earthly idea (literally) about science, and evolution. Man wasn't meant to unravel that mystery until years later. The bible was written by men, who had an interest in power and keeping the Church as the dominant religion of the time. If you disbelieve this, then you do yourself a disservice in not really seeking the truth about all you 'believe' about the bible. It's not this cosmic, holy book that dropped from the heavens. Men wrote it. I do believe there were holy texts, but who was there to give these men the 'eye witness' report about Adam and Eve? I was taught that they (the clergy who wrote the bible) were 'divinely inspired.' but God divinely inspired the clergy to write a story to convince millions of people...then, and into the future...that the very first humans came from dust...and the entire balance of mankind was going to hang in the balance over a forbidden apple? I find the story to be an insult to the magnitude of God, frankly.

The Bible 'teaches' one...rather limits one...on how to interact with God. Say this. Do this. If you say and do this, you won't burn in hell. Really? Is that the sum total of God? Half of the Bible is riddled with rituals that honestly only pertained to Jewish customs, of that time period. (and we are led to believe these 'rules' all came down from the heavens) They were rules that men used to govern society...and I'm guessing people were pretty pliable back then. lol They seemed to believe every 'law of the land' came from God.

I think the Bible has taught me many things...some good, some confusing...some, I don't even pay attention to, because it lacks credibility. The Bible isn't going to dictate to me how I relate to God. That's all I'm trying to convey, Jan.

Don't you think it is possible for God to relay such knowledge to his creatures?

He did relay knowledge about evolution... through Darwin. The beauty of science, is man's interaction with it. Personally, I believe that God can be seen as interacting with us most, when we discover another new 'truth' about the universe, or about ourselves. About our very existence. That to me, is God in action...allowing us to discover him in a very meaningful way. Believing in evolution actually strengthened my faith in God interestingly, it didn't diminish it. Believing in the Adam and Eve story always caused me a bit of angst. :/

That is the most famous atheist cliche.
Can you come up with something that actually means something?

The reason it doesn't mean something to you, Jan is because you choose to not believe it.
It means a lot...you and I are here because of evolution. Not because Adam and Eve are our ''relatives.''

I accept what makes sense to me.

And this is fair. So, my question is...are you satisfied with how the thread went along? Do you think differently about anything discussed, since creating it?

And there's a reason for that, namely it contradicts God. Which brings us to the OP.

No, it contradicts the Bible, not God. God isn't the Bible.

So you believe darwinian idea's blindly?
To answer that you must tear yourself away from the ''overwhelming evidence'' cliche.

If your belief in God is ''a personal view'' then you're admitting that you give characteristics to God, not that you accept the God's characteristics of Himself. Do you think that such an exercise constitutes ''theism''?

I think I've provided sufficient evidence as to why I believe in the theory of evolution, and I also believe in God. I have no crossroads with this, whatsoever, because the only reason believers don't believe in evolution or are wobbly about it, is because they hold up the Adam and Eve story as literal truth. The Bible is a book, it's not God. The Bible hasn't been around that long in the grand scheme of things, ....what did people believe before the Bible? There were polytheistic religions yes, but there were cultures/civilzations who believed in one God. What brought about their belief? Where did their faith come from, when they had no Bible? Where did their faith come from, before 'Scripture?'