1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Hubert Farnsworth, May 29, 2018.

  1. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    54,960
    Ratings:
    +13,513
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    In 1950, the scientific community had already recognized that evolutionary theory implied polygenism. This wasn't unknown to Pius; in fact, the section is intended as a response to the scientific consensus, which on this point was largely the same as it is today.

    The changes on this point haven't been a matter of science so much as matters of politics and culture. Anti-science views are now an embarrassing liability.

    I don't accept the idea that Pius was incapable of expressing what he meant. I also don't accept the revisionist idea that changes in Catholic thought since Pius wrote the encyclical had an influence on what Pius intended to express.

    It's perfectly reasonable to say that he was sincere but mistaken and set his opinion aside.
     
  2. Vouthon

    Vouthon In varietate concordia
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,341
    Ratings:
    +1,994
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    Advances in genomic science and studies of genetic diversity have come on massively since 1950.

    Back then, it was far more defensible for Christians and others to hold to monogenism, but after recent scientific endeavours like the Human Genome Project (1990-2003), it has become much less so.

    I mean, in 1950 there was still a competing theory to the big bang in cosmology - Hoyle's steady state. That wasn't discarded until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. Which is to say, we've moved on since then in a lot of fields.

    Then why did he state that it 'appeared' to be irreconcilable? Why the element of doubt rather than just 'it is'?

    He brought in the doubt not to his conclusions but to his premise for making the conclusions in question, which he obviously must have realized might be updated by subsequent scientific and theological inquiry. And many have argued that this is the case, and I see little reason to disagree with them.

    Theologians have theorized about ways in which polygenism fits with our doctrines that were not yet available to Pius XII in 1950, because they hadn't yet been proposed.

    Indeed, I believe that he was mistaken in the premises he used and so his opinions can be respectfully set aside as an artifact of the cultural milieu in which he operated.
     
    #62 Vouthon, May 30, 2018
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,701
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    De Facto Atheist - technically Agnostic
    Of course it's morally repugnant, but that's how the bible depicts God.
     
  4. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,701
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    De Facto Atheist - technically Agnostic
    So you don't take the bible literally then. Fair enough. Maybe it's just because of the evangelical circles that I was exposed to as a kid, but to me, a Christian is someone who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God.
     
  5. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +1,044
    Religion:
    My Own
    Rationalizing has nothing to do with it. People choose to have faith in a particular type of God in spite of not having any rationale reason why. There is not a shred of evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent Christian God. This is why people have faith. The existence of a particular type of God is consider to be an axiom. And axiom is accepted as being true without any proof.

    Now if you have faith in an omnipotent God, then by having a omnipotence means God has no limitations. So an omnipotent Christian God can create man from nothingness with any type of physical history intact.

    Are you one of those nihilists who think God is subject to the laws of physics?
     
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,270
    Ratings:
    +6,395
    Religion:
    None
    It is precisely a case of rationalizing.

    As for "choosing" to believe, that is for those
    who are into self deception.

    I do believe, or do not, but it has to have a reason.
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,282
    Ratings:
    +15,112
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Only some people rationalize. Some people's beliefs are evidence based. The problem with rationalization is that it is usually merely believing what one wants to believe. It, like faith, is not a pathway to the truth, if that is what matters to you. If a person wants to be comfortable in their own made up world rationalization may not be harmful all of the time.

    And no, accepting the Christian God is not an axiom. It is an unjustified assumption.
     
  8. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +1,044
    Religion:
    My Own
    Everyone has a set of axioms they consider to be absolutely true without any proof. It's just some people are aware of ones they choose to accept. While some people just think they are "right" and certain other people are without a doubt "insane" because they do share the same axioms.

    If you do not accept the existence of God as an axiom, then you will think theists are irrational and insane. Even further, some people believe in the old testament Jewish God as their axiom. Most people think people who believe the old testament Jewish God are really insane!
     
  9. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +1,044
    Religion:
    My Own
    People can choose any axiom they want. Who put you in charge?
     
  10. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,270
    Ratings:
    +6,395
    Religion:
    None
    Everyone has a set of axioms they consider to be absolutely true without any proof.

    Not so. Not of me, and not of any scientist. You should avoid statements of facts not in evidence, or projecting your own faults onto others.

    You are wandering far from the topic here. What I described as classic
    rationalizing was exactly that.

    "Choosing to believe" is choosing self deception. Even if you accidently
    are correct.

    Most people think people who believe the old testament Jewish God are really insane

    The things you make up and state as fact!
     
  11. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +1,044
    Religion:
    My Own
    Nobody is stating having faith is an objective fact. That's your world. Axioms are considered to be true without any proof. Having faith in God is an axiom that is chosen.

    You do have axioms. You just are not aware of the ones you have chosen because you think yours are absolute truths that cannot be questioned.

    Most scientist use the word Time like the way theists use the word God. Time is eternal, always exists, and is everywhere just like God. We can;t see Time. We can't hold Time in our hands and experience it the same way we experience an apple. Yet everyone swears Time exists. How is that any different than the way a theist believes in God? It's not.

    "There Is No Such Thing As Time"

    I'm sure you have many other axioms. For example, the only ideas worth believing are ones supported by facts and evidence. This is a subjective judgment. All objectivity is subjectively determined. No matter how rationale you think you are and how insane you think I am doesn't change the fact that your judgments about what is "right" and what is "wrong" is nothing more than just an subjective opinion no better than the ones I have. You claim your opinions are better than mine. But you can't prove they are better.

    If someone has faith in an omnipotent God, then an omnipotent God could certainly create man according to the Bible and include the physical history of evolution to boot.
     
  12. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +1,044
    Religion:
    My Own
    It's not self deception if you are aware that you are making a "choice" and not a "decision".
     
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,282
    Ratings:
    +15,112
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The people that defined "axiom".
     
  14. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,270
    Ratings:
    +6,395
    Religion:
    None
    Easiest person to fool is yourself, and you are
    doing fine at it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,270
    Ratings:
    +6,395
    Religion:
    None
    Between your totally misreading what I say, and making things up, this is tiresome and pointless. forget it.
     
  16. Cassandra

    Cassandra Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    503
    Ratings:
    +162
    These days RCC accepts both evolution and creationism as viable theories and leaves the choice up to the believers. I think RCC is often misunderstood as Protestantism. In the RCC it is the priesthood who study the scripture and they do not bore the common people with theology. They are the Salt of the Earth as Jesus calls them in the Sermon of the Mount. What the Popes says these days is more like guideline for the believer. But RCC explicitly leaves room for ordinary people to make up their own mind and follow their own conscience. I wish more churches did that.

    These days for most Catholics it is the good Spirit that guides that is the important thing. They are not like protestants who heavily study the Bible. Also RCC sees new discoveries and insights as the works of the Spirit in progress. Sure there are Catholics too who take a very literal view, but that is their own personal choice. You will not find common Catholics discussing beliefs like protestants. Generally the knowledge of ordinary Catholics in theological matters is as low as their interest in them. It is more like Jesus gave us a good example to follow.

    I think the Pope is doing a good job, It is ironical that there is so much hate against RCC on the Internet these days as it has become fairly moderate. I think it is orthodox Judaism, Evangelicals, Islamists and overbearing atheists that seek conflict, probably as part of their proselytizing.
     
  17. Thermos aquaticus

    Thermos aquaticus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,336
    Ratings:
    +1,327
    Call me old fashioned, but I think it is up to each Christian to decide if a scientific theory can be reconciled with their beliefs.
     
  18. Thermos aquaticus

    Thermos aquaticus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,336
    Ratings:
    +1,327
    Inerrancy also seems to be a more modern view that started with The Fundamentals in 1910. If you were raised in evangelical circles in the US then you may have a skewed view of what Christianity is like elsewhere in the world.
     
  19. Thermos aquaticus

    Thermos aquaticus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,336
    Ratings:
    +1,327
    "True axioms are more solid than that. They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge. There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness."
    Axiom

    Having faith that something is true is not an axiom.

    The difference is that we can measure time.

    That would be an epistemology, not an axiom. Skepticism is an epistemology. The scientific method is an epistemology.

    "Epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring knowledge. It answers the question, "How do we know?" It encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well as thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, and all things mental. It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and whether these relationships are valid or invalid."
    Epistemology

    Objects can be empirically measured which is not the same as subjective.

    And there is the false equivalency that you were working so hard to reach. You want to pretend as if faith based beliefs are on the same level as empirically supported conclusions. Guess what? They aren't.
     
  20. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    wow at 5 my father was teaching me genetic traits l, and in fact origi ally Darwin based his entire theory of natural selection On dog breeding. We have been Involved in genetic manipulation for 10,000 years. How the heck do you think corn arose magic? We intuitively knew that traits could be selected and cross bred none of this is remotely new.
     
Loading...