Is Darwinism compatible with Religion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lightgigantic

Banned
Banned
Here's the conclusion of this article

That depends on one's conventions. If by God you mean a real spiritual being who controls natural phenomena, even to a slight degree, then Darwinism utterly rejects your idea -- not because science
empirically disproves it, but because the idea goes against the fundamental scientific program of explaining all phenomena through the laws of physics. Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism only if they hold that God is simply a human idea having something to do with moral imperatives. But if this is what you believe, then instead of having religious beliefs, you have "scientific" beliefs about religion.
 
Depends on how one defines religion.

To me, "religion" just indicates a certain devotion to one's philosophical views and beliefs.
So, religion can be compatible with Science and the scientific method, and empiricism. Especially religions lacking a definite or dogmatised view on divinity, such as Unitarian Universalism, Humanism, Paganism, and Buddhism.

But, even other, more "textbook" examples of a religion, such as Christianity, can be compatible with it, depending on how abstractly one takes said religion's stated ideals.
 
Exactly. Even in Christianity, one could take an abstract view of divinity. A friend of mine, a Catholic, views God almost pantheistically, as the sum of the physical laws of the universe, and uses quantum mechanics as a "god idea" so to speak.

Others, however, might take the old standard approach of an entirely transcendent deity, and dogmatically view the bible's text as literal and at face-value, and essentially view God as totally concrete. This sort of viewpoint makes the acceptance of science and empiricism difficult.
 
FROM THE BIBLE, particularly NEW TESTAMENT

Hapsburg said:
Depends on how one defines religion.

To me, "religion" just indicates a certain devotion to one's philosophical views and beliefs.
So, religion can be compatible with Science and the scientific method, and empiricism. Especially religions lacking a definite or dogmatised view on divinity, such as Unitarian Universalism, Humanism, Paganism, and Buddhism.

But, even other, more "textbook" examples of a religion, such as Christianity, can be compatible with it, depending on how abstractly one takes said religion's stated ideals.
Click to expand...

RELIGION?

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.
 
lightgigantic said:
Here's the conclusion of this article

That depends on one's conventions. If by God you mean a real spiritual being who controls natural phenomena, even to a slight degree, then Darwinism utterly rejects your idea -- not because science
empirically disproves it, but because the idea goes against the fundamental scientific program of explaining all phenomena through the laws of physics. Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism only if they hold that God is simply a human idea having something to do with moral imperatives. But if this is what you believe, then instead of having religious beliefs, you have "scientific" beliefs about religion.
Click to expand...
Nah, thats wrong, it all depends on how you define "God", Darwinism really has no problems with "God" existing at all, it simply attempts to explain things happening
 
depends in what religion you believe. If you rae a creationist, then in my opinion, unless you are very ignorant, you cannot believe in both darwinism and creation.
 
Deism is a good example of a religion that has no issues with evolutionary style theories and in fact the religion is dependent on such theories to explain what happened after their god started everything.

Many sects in Christianity have moved beyond the notion that their god engineered every possible bio orgnanism and accept that evolution has and is occurring. While others take the creation parts of the bible literally and choose to reject a large part of scientific discovery.

Einstein, who was pantheistic than anything else, thought the idea of a god interfering with minutia more than a silly notion but saw the universe itself as a spiritual phenomenon that revealed itself through the laws of physics.

We should expect to see that with the thousands of religions and related superstitions and spiritual concepts that exist and have existed, that almost every permutation of man's imagaination of what might be or could be, will be expressed in religious terminology and dogma. By chance some might agree with scientific discovery and/or reality but we should expect that most will either disagree and in some cases the advocates might decide to take a stand against science - creationists for example.

Religion reflects man's imagination in the absence of facts. And these ideas come and go as science provides facts.

Science is simply an innocent ongoing process for helping man determine what is fact and what is not. It is these facts that help mankind improve his lot in life. Religious ideas appear to be just passing fancies that are systematically discredited over time in direct correlation with the growth of scientific knowledge.
 
So...where's the contradiction? Why can't you believe both?
Click to expand...
You mean like some people are the result of evolution while others are descended from A&E?

Or do you mean that A&E were the results of evolutionary processes that God designed?
 
I-Am-Invisible said:
yes: the last pope said so..
Click to expand...

Indeed. Creationism and evolution, in my opinion, are intertwined. Survival of the fittest obviously exists in nature; but science has yet to observe (archaeologically, bio-genetically, or otherwise) any change so radical as a change from one genus into another (i.e. chimp to human). Even species to species adaptation is infinitely rare; homo-erectus to homo-sapien? Evolution is at best a theory of origin no greater in fact or substantiation than Genesis. Fitness for survival is key to any living creature; but that doesn't mean a tree will become a cactus if you give it no water and too much sunshine over 40,000 years.
 
Cris said:
You mean like some people are the result of evolution while others are descended from A&E?

Or do you mean that A&E were the results of evolutionary processes that God designed?
Click to expand...

Why not both? You can believe that evolution happened through God (since Genesis describes it happening in the correct order) or believe that other humans evolved naturally and that Adam and Eve were the ones who were created by God
 
Hapsburg said:
Exactly. Even in Christianity, one could take an abstract view of divinity. A friend of mine, a Catholic, views God almost pantheistically, as the sum of the physical laws of the universe, and uses quantum mechanics as a "god idea" so to speak.

Others, however, might take the old standard approach of an entirely transcendent deity, and dogmatically view the bible's text as literal and at face-value, and essentially view God as totally concrete. This sort of viewpoint makes the acceptance of science and empiricism difficult.
Click to expand...
since claiming that god doesn't exist concretely on the basis of empiricism still remains a metaphysical claim, its not clear where the discrepancy lies
 
Cris said:
Religious ideas appear to be just passing fancies that are systematically discredited over time in direct correlation with the growth of scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...

this last statement sounds much like the ebb and flow of scientific theories - anyway I think what you have provided is a clear example of a scientific belief of religion, as indicated in the OP
 
Learned Hand said:
Indeed. Creationism and evolution, in my opinion, are intertwined. Survival of the fittest obviously exists in nature; but science has yet to observe (archaeologically, bio-genetically, or otherwise) any change so radical as a change from one genus into another (i.e. chimp to human).
Click to expand...

If by "observe" you mean watch it happening live, then you're correct. But we don't need to observe in that sense to know that evolution is correct. We can look at the fossil record. We can do genetic studies.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is at best a theory of origin no greater in fact or substantiation than Genesis.
Click to expand...

Genesis is a creation myth, with no supporting evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory with reams of supporting evidence.

Enough said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top