Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

Science can't answer all questions, though; for instance, it can't tell you whether a certain painting is beautiful, or whether someone is good or evil. That's the value of religion.
 
John,

Things had to start somehow or somewhere.
Click to expand...
Why?

If you think this through a little further you will realize it is impossible for there to have been a beginning.

If we agree that everything that occurs has a cause then if there was a time when there was nothing, then there would not have been anything to start the first event, and everything that follows could not occur and we could not be here.

To say that space and the universe always existed is not really an answer. On the other hand if we say that there is a God, whatever or whoever it may be, then there had to be a beginning for it. Well then where did this God come from?
Click to expand...
I think you are close to answering your own question.

Whatever way you cut this something MUST have an infinite nature. Something must be infinite since a beginning point is impossible. The reason a god is often proposed is to answer the question of where the universe came from but doesn’t answer the question of where the god came from. The god idea simply doesn’t answer the question of origins.

Now we also know from physics that nothing is ever created or destroyed, but that energy and matter are interchangeable. From this simple observation we have no basis to suggest the universe has not always existed and no reason to suggest a god was a cause of something that apparently doesn’t need to be caused.
 
spidergoat said:
What about your hero, Hitler?
Click to expand...

My hero? Hardly. Why would the man who murdered my brothers be my hero?

Cris, before the universe there wasn't time and therefore chronoligical order isn't necessary. This justifies God being "eternal"
 
Cris said:
Whatever way you cut this something MUST have an infinite nature. Something must be infinite since a beginning point is impossible.
Click to expand...
You are talking about this from the narrow and flawed perspective of a being which lives in a Universe which has a temporal dimension. That prohibits you from figuring out what is really going on.
 
Norsefire,

Cris, before the universe there wasn't time and therefore chronoligical order isn't necessary. This justifies God being "eternal"
Click to expand...
Without time no events can occur and hence there could not have been a beginning.

Asserting there was a point where time did not exist has no bearing or justification for asserting an eternal god.
 
SAM,

Said what? That religious people suffer from a virus of the mind?
Click to expand...
No, go back and read my post correctly.

The quote was -

but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist.
Click to expand...

This was the point of the debate. You are fully ready to believe he said that, but I doubt you can find a reference to him actually stating that sentiment.
 
Ophiolite,

You are talking about this from the narrow and flawed perspective of a being which lives in a Universe which has a temporal dimension. That prohibits you from figuring out what is really going on.
Click to expand...
Why is it narrow or flawed? What evidence can you show that time is a dimension and that it can be avoided?

Time appears to be a necessary property of existence. What example could you show where something could exist outside of time.

Simply asserting that it is possible without any meaningful basis is simply a waste of good white space on my screen.

Describe how something could exist or how events could occur without time, then I might give your idea some credibility.
 
Cris said:
SAM,

No, go back and read my post correctly.

The quote was -



This was the point of the debate. You are fully ready to believe he said that, but I doubt you can find a reference to him actually stating that sentiment.
Click to expand...

I know that thiests conceal their faith in Oxford. That many religious people are told outright that their beliefs will make upward mobility difficult if not impossible. Dawkins spouts enough vomit against theists and religion that this is most probably what he thinks, its consistent with his views on both theism and theists. I've heard him say no scientist is a true theist, whatever the fuck that is in his mind.

"real scientists are naturalists" :rolleyes:

And this is a guy who has met Francis Collins.
 
SAM,

I've heard him say no scientist is a true theist, ....

"real scientists are naturalists"
Click to expand...
Heard him? Or is that how you interpret what he says.

Can you find the quote?
 
No, and I couldn't be bothered to. I've heard his bilious bullshit enough. But you can read his preface to The God Delusion, he carries on at some length about "real" scientists.
 
SAM said:
Dawkins spouts enough vomit against theists and religion that this is most probably what he thinks, its consistent with his views on both theism and theists.
Click to expand...
I continue to be surprised that apparently no warning bells go off in your mind when you see yourself typing things like "this is most probably what he thinks" as a justification for a false assertion about what someone has said or written.

You have an odd and unsupported (to be charitable) view of what Dawkins has written, which is easy to explain and excuse because you have not read it. But your insistence in talking about, referring to, and making claims concerning, a specific matter of which you are not only obviously ignorant but self-admittedly biased, is strange.

Isn't there some other atheist reference or source or something, one you are actually familiar with and can say reasonable things about, that you can use?
SAM said:
I know that thiests conceal their faith in Oxford. That many religious people are told outright that their beliefs will make upward mobility difficult if not impossible.
Click to expand...
If you refer to your statement above - "This is most probably what he thinks" - and consider how common that kind argument has been and is among even well-educated, credentialed, and outwardly intelligent theists in many arenas, the suspicion that avowed theism incurs in rigorous intellectual circles may perhaps become less mysterious in origin.

As far as the OP - of course. It can be fitted, has been fitted, and there is no problem in general.
 
Next you'll be telling me that Dawkins thinks religious scientists are true theists.
 
SAM said:
Next you'll be telling me that Dawkins thinks religious scientists are true theists.
Click to expand...
You don't know much of anything about what Dawkins thinks. You don't even know what he's written, and you can't keep straight or remember what he says, so your information about what he thinks is obviously inadequate, to the point of leading you badly astray.

Why the fixation ? Is there no other reference for atheism you can use, one you know more about, can at least quote accurately ?

In particular, something that has more bearing on this thread would be nice. Presumably you agree that religion can fit into evolutionary theory. But clearly some forms of some religions don't. So what are the key differences between those that fit into evolutionary theory and those that do not ?
 
iceaura said:
You don't know much of anything about what Dawkins thinks. You don't even know what he's written, and you can't keep straight or remember what he says, so your information about what he thinks is obviously inadequate, to the point of leading you badly astray.
Click to expand...

Oh so he now thinks religion and science are compatible? That thiests make excellent scientists? Thats good to know, I had no idea he had advanced so much from his paper on viruses of the mind. Or his announcement that being religious is akin to sucking dummies.
 
religion and evolution

First of all anyone with the brains of a goldfish can see that religion is a crock.

What kind of God would condone Islamic terrorism or what God would condone pedophilia (catholicism) In the christian nations same sex marriage is condoned but the christian bible says that this is the most dispicable of sins.

The christian bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth and everything on the Earth in six days. Now a goldfish might buy into that but that would sure make God one busy guy. Science clearly refutes that delusion but then again the same christian bible says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

Again the goldfish is so literal that it can't comprehend that an eternal God is not bound by time so to God a day could be a thousand years or a million years or even fifteen minutes.

Don't worry about what God's doing or has done, there's nothing you can do about it anyway. Just worry about the things that you do and the choices you make and how God feels about that. Don't be a goldfish that thing on your shoulders is for more than your hairdresser to make a buck.
 
SAM said:
Oh so he now thinks religion and science are compatible? That thiests make excellent scientists? Thats good to know, I had no idea he had advanced so much from his paper on viruses of the mind. Or his announcement that being religious is akin to sucking dummies.
Click to expand...
This is painful. You are talking to people who have read Dawkins, you know. Doesn't that make you at least kind of hesitate a little ?

me said:
You don't know much of anything about what Dawkins thinks. You don't even know what he's written, and you can't keep straight or remember what he says, so your information about what he thinks is obviously inadequate, to the point of leading you badly astray.

Why the fixation ? Is there no other reference for atheism you can use, one you know more about, can at least quote accurately ?
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, about the OP, we have a real question here: what are the differences between religious sects that fit in with evolutionary theory, and those that do not ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top