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. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    29,023
    Ratings:
    +12,293
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    That's how your interpretation of that narrative is being depicted, plus the words "original sin" actually aren't found in the Bible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Thermos aquaticus

    Thermos aquaticus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,336
    Ratings:
    +1,327
    Have you actually read any of Darwin's works? I think not. It's free online, so no reason to keep going through life making these types of foolish statements:

    The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

    That doesn't change the fact that evolution is more than just a narrative.
     
  3. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,492
    Religion:
    None
    I doubt any intelligent person who knows what a theory is considers creationism to be a theory, as it has none (0) of the requisite qualities.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    55,054
    Ratings:
    +13,577
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Pius expresses the opinion that Genesis was intended as some sort of factual history:

    "This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense,"
     
  5. Cassandra

    Cassandra Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    503
    Ratings:
    +162
    That sounds pretty aggressive and uncompromising. An elaborate way of calling people morons for holding a view. Why are insults so important in these discussions?
     
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,492
    Religion:
    None
    No aggression or insult is involved, or intended.

    I could with better cause ask why you choose to think the
    worst of me, and attack me personally instead of making
    some sort of on -topic statement?

    I absolutely did not do as you say, calling people a moron
    for "holding a view"/ Now THAT is being insulting.
    I said no intelligent person WHO UNDERSTANDS
    WHAT A THEORY IS. Lots of smart people are ill informed.

    What do we call a person who knows better, but says something
    untrue anyway? Your distaste for the one pointing out the facts
    might be better directed to those out to deceive.

    You do know who Cassandra was, in mythology? Like, the person
    who was telling people true things they did not want to hear?

    As for the compromise? Creationism is not a theory,
    as a theory has certain requirements of which creationism fulfills
    t he number I said-zero.

    How does one "compromise" on that? As soon as "creationism"
    can qualify for the status, I am sure it will get it.

    Why do you call it something it is not?
     
    #86 Audie, May 30, 2018
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,646
    Ratings:
    +15,358
    Religion:
    Atheist
    How about using the word educated rather than intelligent. There are intelligent people out there that have almost no education in the sciences.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,492
    Religion:
    None
    I put in the "educated" already: "who knows what a theory is".

    I could have left out the "intelligent" part, as it is more or less irrelevant.
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,646
    Ratings:
    +15,358
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I missed the qualifier and you are correct.
     
  10. Vouthon

    Vouthon In varietate concordia
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,343
    Ratings:
    +1,999
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    I wish you had continued that quotation, for if you had, you'd have read that Pius XII explains that he is talking about salvation history, which is precisely what I was saying to you earlier:


    This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.

    He explicitly says in the above that the Genesis account is history in the sense of salvation history (i.e. using metaphorical language) but not history in the sense of Herodotus or the Roman historians like Suetonius.
     
  11. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,281
    Ratings:
    +3,995
    Religion:
    atheist
    If someone has faith in an omnipotent God, then an omnipotent God could certainly have created man, the physical history of evolution and the bible Last Thursday.
     
  12. sealchan

    sealchan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,970
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    Religion:
    Christian
    I think that the truth of what has actually happened in God's creation is at odds with that assertion. It will become a prime necessity for evangelicals to need to maneuver out of such thinking but I'm certain that can happpen.

    Once the obvious truth that the Bible is actually a collection of works selected by humans from a much larger collection all written by humans all of whom had various motives, experiences and imperfections, then a much deeper appreciation can be had for humanities efforts to relate to God over time and that contrary to what many bible worshippers think, the story of God and His people is not a closed book.

    We are a people in the western nations who have collectively grown up as cildren of a Christian God and the still popular child like believe in the Bible as literal is no longer acceptable to more and more of us. We are at least "adolescents" of God with the power to pre-empt final prophecy in a growing number of ways.
     
  13. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,281
    Ratings:
    +3,995
    Religion:
    atheist
    • Time exists independent of man. Gods do not exist independent of man.
    • Time existed before man. Man's imaginings created gods.
    • Man can measure time and use it in mathematical formulas. Man cannot measure gods. Gods are not used in mathematical formulas.
     
  14. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,063
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Yes, sadly there are some. With religion, as with anything else, a lot comes down to the quality of the education people receive. I know from my own Catholic upbringing that a lot of Catholic priests in the UK are lamentably poorly taught - even on their own church's doctrine. (We had one chap at our local church some years ago who seemed to think everything the pope said was infallible. We were all taught, at school at the age of ten, this only applies to ex cathedra pronouncements - and that for this reason popes are jolly careful not to make ex cathedra pronouncements! As far as I know there have only been two. Ever. :rolleyes:)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,063
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Yes this is also my understanding, although it is my hope that in 400 years or so (i.e. with typical Catholic alacrity) the church will come realise this too is not something to be taken literally. I actually see no reason why they get hung up on it. I was taught, by a not specially liberal priest back in the 1960s, that Original Sin can be seen as @Armoured explained earlier on this thread, namely as the predisposition of Man to do evil, in spite of having the moral awareness (having allegorically "eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil") to distinguish evil from good. I do not see why there need be an historical first man and woman who committed an individual "sin event", as it were, for this doctrine to hold. It is an expression of the weakness of human nature, that's all.

    P.S. I see Vouthon has presented some interesting quotations regarding the status of this doctrine. There would appear to be some finessing of the issue in Catholic theology at the moment. Maybe we will not have to wait 400years after all, Hooray.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Cassandra

    Cassandra Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    503
    Ratings:
    +162
    You basically wrote if you consider creationism a theory you are not intelligent, because lack of understanding of something is generally associated with lack of intelligence, not lack of knowledge. It is interpreted differently from
    "no intelligent person, WHO IS WELL INFORMED WHAT A THEORY IS, ..."

    You seem to hold the view that the implications of words depend wholly on intend, not on how people perceive one's words. Then when interpreted negatively, you see that as a personal attack to which you react by taking on the role of the insulted. Hmmm. That actually is like their thinking.

    In my experience even the people out to deceive and feeling pleasure in that are still trapped in their own lies. You can not take that path and not lower you consciousness. But then you are talking about 1-2% psychopaths. Once you start attacking widely held religious views you actually provide them with a cover to create conflict from.

    A compromise is not necessarily finding a common view. A compromise can also be to let the matter rest, or accept differences of views. Let's agree to disagree. If fundamentalist persist on pushing their views, one can ridicule them in a good humored manner (not in a sarcastic manner). The Bible does not say for nothing that there is one thing the Holly Spirit does not forgive, and that is being ridiculed. Because believers love to be attacked, insulted, chastised. That only fulfills the prophecies of the Bible. To feel victim, makes them feel worthy servants of their God. It gives them a challenge ("We shall overcome"). That is why they actually seek being ridiculed and attacked. They invite people to do that by attacking them first. They want to be hated. They love that. No one is a sadist without being a masochist.

    Good humored fun makes them powerless. Read the Bible, it is totally humorless. It is a book that prepares people for conflict. It makes them experts in conflict. It is very easy to win the debate on reason and lose the popular vote. To win the popular vote one should not be seen as aggressor. No matter how much one is provoked, one then loses because they play a home game for their people. They may not be scientists but they can sell second hand cars without brakes better than anyone else. They know how to play peoples emotions. The Bible uses emotional arguments, not reason. It is created by tradesmen. Tradesmen know what arguments convince.

    Just a question I am interested in. Do you think the confrontational attitude of the left actually helped achieving a more reasonable thinking, or sped up acceptance of more reasonable scientific views? Do you think American politics is improving as a result. Or do the left volunteer to play the role of the enemy of God, the enemy fundamentalists so bitterly seek and need?
     
    #96 Cassandra, May 30, 2018
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  17. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    stick figures I will make it easy. Since really this is a quasi discussion about consciousness. It see
    Well all of us create narrative. The only real facts I know are nature is
    R Really! I stated fact life interconnected. Did I or did I Not.,? I throw a rock into the air and it falls to the ground another Fact,? Do I need an explanation narrative for the rock to Fall? NO. Do I need a narrative to Know that life is interconnected No.
    You are absolutely not even remotely Feynman. Because feynman readily admitted that scientific theories are not proof and they are always proven over time to be wrong. They are our narrative at the time in which we exist. And all of this is determined not by us but by nature. You are playing make believe you are objective and nature is subjective that is mid level lab drone science. Horrid inexcusable philosophy dressed as science in Fact.

    So since we are on Darwin there is a fundemental problem with this first drawing that was never corrected In Any Darwinian narrative. What exactly is the big problem? It should be easy to spot.
    598px-Darwins_first_tree-1.jpg
     
  18. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    25,630
    Ratings:
    +8,091
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian
    Good point about Science, at least as properly and morally practiced.

    no, Scientists don't. Time is a physically measured quantity but one which is relative to other measured quantities. Its not axiomatic but experiential.
    they are not fundamentally irreconcileable but fundamentalism and childish literalism is irreconcileable with almost any reality we experience I think.
    ...yes although there really are many churches in the USA where creationism is preached, and this is inexcusable I think. Its not Ok to use pseudo science to prop up a ministry, a faith claim, a view of the Bible. Those few who say "I oppose Science." are being honest, but that is not what has been happening. Instead they claim to support Science as that is popular and to claim Science must support their claims. At the expense of the education of children they do it.

    Its a terrible thing.

    True.
     
  19. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,492
    Religion:
    None
    I am worried about what that will do to my 401k.
     
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,646
    Ratings:
    +15,358
    Religion:
    Atheist
    What 401k?
     
Loading...