How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

[InChrist]

26 jun 2018 stvdv 013 02




Not necessarily. When the scientist is honest, and accept that he works below the mind, he has to admit that he can make no claims about God and spirit. So he can not remove them. He can say I remove them from the "worldview how I perceive it". But should add "spiritual masters have more view than I, so I can't claim anything here".

I'm not saying a scientist "removes" God or spirit as they go about their work. Just saying that the foundation of evolution is already the assumption that there is no God or spiritual aspect to the universe.

 

[exchemist]

I have always found that the Adam and Eve myth fails on several levels. An incompetent God creates a flawed creation and blames his work. That flaw is somehow passed on down to innocent people that had nothing to do with the event, another fail.

Haha, no, as has been mentioned many times on this forum, the creation story needs to be read as literary, not literal. It is an allegory. It expresses in rather poetic imagery the double-edged nature of mankind's moral awakening, which although a higher state of being entailed both a loss of innocence and highlighting of the inescapable - effectively hereditary - fact of human moral imperfection. Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the central point here. Animals do what they do in innocence: nobody expects them to know the difference between good and evil. We don't blame a small child for its actions either. But adult human beings do have moral awareness. We can tell right from wrong. And in spite of that, we often do wrong.

The allegory also sets the stage for the relationship between God and Man that is fundamental to the semitic religions, saying that Man is - uniquely - formed in "God's image", that is to say we are said to have something spiritual and potentially perfectable about us, i.e. we should aspire to being more than just animals, and that we can communicate with God, who treats mankind rather as a father treats his children.

These are the main ideas, I think, although, as with literary works generally, there is scope for variations in interpretation (and I do not claim to be a theologian ). It should be possible for a person of sensitivity to understand the ideas expressed, I believe, even if they do not find them personally compelling.

 

[InChrist]

Gravity. Weather studies. Space navigation. Electromagnetism. Technology in general.

I don't feel those are necessarily non-supernaturalistic subject matters to begin with. The Creator has laws and conditions in place and humans study these.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't feel those are necessarily non-supernaturalistic subject matters to begin with. The Creator has laws and conditions in place and humans study these.

How is biology any different, or worse?

 

[Segev Moran]

26 jun 2018 stvdv 013 06


But the question was not about humans, was it?
Just about God and spirituality
There is much more in this universe than humans
We like to think we are paramount, but are we? or is God?

Exactly, Evolution has got nothing to do with god existence

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haha, no, as has been mentioned many times on this forum, the creation story needs to be read as literary, not literal. It is an allegory. It expresses in rather poetic imagery the double-edged nature of mankind's moral awakening, which although a higher state of being entailed both a loss of innocence and highlighting of the inescapable - effectively hereditary - fact of human moral imperfection. Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the central point here. Animals do what they do in innocence: nobody expects them to know the difference between good and evil. We don't blame a small child for its actions either. But adult human beings do have moral awareness. We can tell right from wrong. And in spite of that, we often do wrong.

The allegory also sets the stage for the relationship between God and Man that is fundamental to the semitic religions, saying that Man is - uniquely - formed in "God's image", that is to say we are said to have something spiritual and potentially perfectable about us, i.e. we should aspire to being more than just animals, and that we can communicate with God, who treats mankind rather as a father treats his children.

These are the main ideas, I think, although, as with literary works generally, there is scope for variations in interpretation (and I do not claim to be a theologian ). It should be possible for a person of sensitivity to understand the ideas expressed, I believe, even if they do not find them personally compelling.

As a literary message it works. As a literal one it fails.

The simplistic literal approach has a simplistic refutation.

 

[we-live-now]

Does evolution totally remove God, and spirit from reality.

If yes, how so?

If no, how so?

Or a similar question is "How can one accept truth as NEVER changing when clearly this world is in constant change?"

Some say that true reality is unchanging (but hidden) and thus the reality we see is not real but merely an image we have created.

 

[osgart]

A spiritual reality doesnt have to be supernatural, it could be very natural. So natural that perhaps it is undetectable by science.

Surely life would take hold and sprout up everywhere if only the right conditions were in place. So there are latent potentialities in the universe, that would come alive and be dynamic if only physics didnt impede the process or stop it altogether.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not saying a scientist "removes" God or spirit as they go about their work. Just saying that the foundation of evolution is already the assumption that there is no God or spiritual aspect to the universe.

This is intriguing. Why do you say that about evolution, when you do not (apparently) think the scientist "removes" God or spirit when they work?

Speaking as someone with a science background and a Christian upbringing, I have never really understood why evolution seems to be singled out as somehow intrinsically atheistic.

 

[ecco]

Everyone believes in science up to, and only up to, the point that it conflicts with their interpretations of holy scripture.

Not interpretation -what is stated and allowed for given the definitions of the words.

If that were true then Christians would all agree. They don't. Some believe all of Genesis is absolute truth. Some believe all of Genesis is allegory. Many are between.

So, yes, it's all about interpretation. Probably interpretation based on various levels of credulity.

 

[rrobs]

God made Adam and Eve without the knowledge of right and wrong.

Myth or not, and despite what you believe it to say, the book does clearly say God told them right from wrong.

Gen 2:16-17,

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
​

It is highly illogical to claim God did not tell them right from wrong in light of these simple to read verses. You may not believe the verses of course, but that doesn't change the fact that they do say God instructed Adam and Eve in right and wrong. I don't know how else they could be read. If you are going to make clams about the Bible at least make sure you read it first.

 

[InChrist]

How is biology any different, or worse?

I'm not saying it is different or worse. What I am saying is that for those who accept the standard atheistic idea of evolution and look at everything based on the assumption that there is nothing other than naturalism/materialism then there is no place for a Creator/God or a spiritual aspect whether biology or elsewhere.

 

[ecco]

If you look carefully at Genesis you will see that God gave dominion to mankind. ... Adam and Eve were the rulers of the earth. ...
They screwed it up, not God. God was forthright in telling them what would happen if they disobeyed His one and only commandment. ...They got exactly what God told them they'd get.

Your omniscient god knew, for all of eternity, that if He created God in the manner He did, that they would choose to disobey Him.

Do you believe your God is omniscient?

He then proceeded with the most brilliant plan ever devised to correct their mistake.

He then proceeded with the most brilliant plan ever devised to correct HIS mistake.

KILL almost EVERYTHING! Women, Children, Fetuses. Don't just painlessly poof them out of existence. Drown them. Bury them alive in mudslides.

Would you say that it would have been better had God forced them do what He wanted instead of giving them free will? Would that have somehow avoided God's failing?

You somehow believe omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. To an Omnipotent God they aren't. Do you believe your God is Omnipotent?

 

[InChrist]

This is intriguing. Why do you say that about evolution, when you do not (apparently) think the scientist "removes" God or spirit when they work?

Speaking as someone with a science background and a Christian upbringing, I have never really understood why evolution seems to be singled out as somehow intrinsically atheistic.

I said they don't remove God or spirit, meaning on a daily basis ...because God or spirit is already eliminated from the start, from their foundational mindset, from their basic presupposition about life and the universe... whether it involves evolution or any other area.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Myth or not, and despite what you believe it to say, the book does clearly say God told them right from wrong.

Gen 2:16-17,

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
​

It is highly illogical to claim God did not tell them right from wrong in light of these simple to read verses. You may not believe the verses of course, but that doesn't change the fact that they do say God instructed Adam and Eve in right and wrong. I don't know how else they could be read. If you are going to make clams about the Bible at least make sure you read it first.

Telling is pointless if they do not understand. I could "tell you" Newton's law of gravity, that does not mean that you would understand it or how to use it. Being told something without the knowledge of how to use that "telling" is worthless. The Bible says that God screwed up and then blamed his creation if you take Genesis literally.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not saying it is different or worse. What I am saying is that for those who accept the standard atheistic idea of evolution and look at everything based on the assumption that there is nothing other than naturalism/materialism then there is no place for a Creator/God or a spiritual aspect whether biology or elsewhere.

There is no standard atheistic idea of evolution.

There is atheism, and there is biological evolution. They are not at odds with each other - and that is exactly how far they connect.

 

[exchemist]

I said they don't remove God or spirit, meaning on a daily basis ...because God or spirit is already eliminated from the start, from their foundational mindset, from their basic presupposition about life and the universe... whether it involves evolution or any other area.

Ah OK, sorry to have misunderstood you, then.

But actually you are wrong about that.( I find myself more or less repeating the discussion I'm having with 1robin - which I don't mind.) It is true that science does not consider God as one of its hypotheses. But that emphatically does NOT mean that a scientist has to be an atheist.

Natural science is the search for explanations of nature in terms of nature, as far as we can push that, which is a bit further every year. The scientist who is a religious believer - and many thousands of them are - simply needs to see God as working through the processes of nature, rather that arbitrarily needing to intervene to tinker with it all the time.

But, to return to my question, am I right in saying that you see nothing specially objectionable about evolution - apart from all science being an atheist enterprise, in your opinion?

 

[stvdv]

26 jun 2018 stvdv 013 15

I'm not saying a scientist "removes" God or spirit as they go about their work. Just saying that the foundation of evolution is already the assumption that there is no God or spiritual aspect to the universe.

Thanks, I did not know that science with evolution in the west was so exclusive, leaving no room for God. Kind of dumb though IMHO, as I already explained. I was long time in India, and there they have "evolution" and "God or spiritual aspect to the universe" combined. Seems that India and spirituality has been my way to go all along.

 

[Shad]

If no, how so?

All knowing and determinism based on a nontemporal reference.

 

[stvdv]

26 jun 2018 stvdv 013 16

Exactly, Evolution has got nothing to do with god existence

You mean to say "I believe in Evolution", and "I do not believe in the existence of God" if I understand correctly. Or do you mean Evolution exists and God exists, but they are totally separated from each other, so that "Evolution has got nothing to do with God existence"?