Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

[Yazata]

You've missed what's really going on here though. What the OP is arguing is that anyone who says they accept the fact of evolution, and believe in God, doesn't really believe in God at all. The justification for this is that a person who really believes in God necessarily sees the process of evolution as being incompatible with that belief.

So, if God merely created a universe in which intelligent life would evolve as an inevitable consequence of the physical parameters He put in place, He's not really God at all, and therefore believing in Him constitutes believing in nothing more than an idea concocted by man. If fact even if God directly authoured abiogenesis, and perhaps even actively guided the resulting processes at a few critical points here and there, He's still not really God at all, and therefore believing in Him still constitutes believing in nothing more than an idea concocted by man.

There was an influential tendency in medieval Islamic theology (it might still survive today) that argued in that way. Historically, at the time when these theologians lived, Darwin's idea of natural selection was unknown. So what these theologians directed the argument against was the idea of natural causation itself.

They insisted that anyone who believes that the states of affairs of this world can come about naturalistically, through physical causation, were in so doing denying God's absolute soverign power. And that kind of God wouldn't be the true Allah of Islam. So these theologians argued for a strong form of occasionalism, where everything that happens in the physical universe from moment to moment is a special creation by God and an expression of God's will. In other words, the universe stays in existence from moment to moment through God's constantly recreating it, with little changes. Of course these speculators were willing to acknowledge that God typically performs this moment-to-moment recreation in accordance with a pattern that we call natural law. (Perhaps so as to make it easier for humans to figure things out.) But that's merely God's choice, and he is free to violate the natural order whenever he chooses. Sometimes he does, when miracles occur.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not really. Just about everyone posts here for fun, and arguing can be entertaining. So the arguments can go on and on endlessly, aimlessly and often in circles.



Of course. I agree with Jayleew. Countless millions of theists believe in biological evolution, so obviously it's possible.

The only way that an incompatibility would seem to arise would be if the theist believed not only in the existence of a 'God' (however that word is defined), but also in a second special-creationist premise that has this God creating all the various 'kinds' of life initially at creation, with the 'kinds' continuing on essentially unchanged ever since.

That suggests that it isn't really theism itself that's incompatible with "Darwinism", but rather the second creationist premise.

Yazata,

Just for the purpose of discussion, can we assume that ''God'' is defined as The Supreme Being, The Original Cause who is uncaused? It would be so much more flowey.

jan.

 

[Rav]

I'm not interested in religious affiliation as being a member of any organisation does nothing to show if you believe in God or not.

And I'm not interested in what you just said because it has little to do with the salient points of the current discussion.

What I am interested in, right now, is whether or not you have the balls to reiterate and/or confirm your stance on the issue. So, do you still maintain that every single theist who believes in evolution (regardless of their religious affiliation <-- see?), doesn't really believe in God?

 

[Rav]

In other words, the universe stays in existence from moment to moment through God's constantly recreating it, with little changes. Of course these speculators were willing to acknowledge that God typically performs this moment-to-moment recreation in accordance with a pattern that we call natural law. (Perhaps so as to make it easier for humans to figure things out.) But that's merely God's choice, and he is free to violate the natural order whenever he chooses. Sometimes he does, when miracles occur.

But interestingly enough, I don't see anything that necessarily renders such a view incompatible with theistic evolution. I mean there's not really an upper limit on the amount of involvement God can have before it stops being called theistic evolution, as long as species actually do evolve from common ancestors.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hmmm. The Pope? Not a true theist!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic church defines it's mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Right?

Jesus said this:

“What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “[c]Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother[d], 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

With darwinian evolution there is no ''create male or female'' it just happens to come out like that with or without God.
So if one goes against the gospel of Jesus Christ by contradicting his teaching, how is that theistic?
What's to stop the Pope from more contradiction? Just a thought

jan.

p.s. I will respond to your long post.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And I'm not interested in what you just said because it has little to do with the salient points of the current discussion.

What I am interested in, right now, is whether or not you have the balls to reiterate and/or confirm your stance on the issue. So, do you still maintain that every single theist who believes in evolution (regardless of their religious affiliation <-- see?), doesn't really believe in God?

My point is that I don't believe it is possible to hold that darwinian idea of evolution definately took place, and believe in God (not a concoction) simultaneously.
It's like going foreward and backward simultaneously. Do you think that can occur?

jan.

 

[Yazata]

But interestingly enough, I don't see anything that necessarily renders such a view incompatible with theistic evolution.

That's an interesting idea. It actually kind of deflates the ultra-theistic objection to theistic evolution.

The ultra-theistic objection seems to be against any natural process whereby things, events or states of affairs come about for reasons other than God's will. The ultra-theists would presumably argue that this sets up a second natural source of creation, alongside God, and would insist that no true theist can allow anything alongside God.

That line of thinking can be applied to biological evolution by natural selection. But it can also be applied at a more basic level, to physical causation itself.

And as you suggest, if we deny the reality of physical causation and replace it with an occasionalistic moment-by-moment divine recreation of everything (with whatever changes God desires), then whatever evolution of species we observe in the fossil record would be due to creative acts of God and would be the direct result of his soverign will. (Because everything is.)

Presumably this line of thought could imagine God recreating life from moment to moment in accordance with natural selection, in the same way that he is imagined as recreating the states of physical matter in accordance with the laws of physics.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

That's incorrect. Animals don't turn into anything. They descend from one another. Descendency is genetic. Over generations genes drift and mutate, introducing gradual changes to the individuals who carry them. The word is evolve. Animals don't evolve into other animals. They simply evolve. There is no endpoint or destination, just whatever works for the survival of that population in that particular set of circumstances. Further, they evolve as populations. Any new genetic traits have to be so successful that they take root in the entire population.

I understand that, but I'm just being light-hearted, kind of like when atheist use the term ''sky daddy'', or compare God with the ''spaghetti monster''. They don't take God seriously even though it is extremely important to some, and no one really tries to correct them at every point. So I figure it's cool to be light-hearted as I don't take whale evolution (especially having seen the movies) seriously. Do you have a problem with that?

What we mean is, denial of evolution is hard evidence that the person does not understand it.

''Deny'' is your term. I don't deny darwinian evolution, it just makes no sense to me, past the obvious idea that things resemble other things. See! I don't deny that.
And the idea of how whales evolved strengthens the nonsensical notion of it./

That's only a minimum of the truth. You need to say when it lived, and how it originated. Then you're getting closer to the truth.[/B]

I don't, but it seems that you do.


jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

For a lot of religious people it doesn't really matter. Historical considerations, and even theological ones beyond their own brand of faith, or sometimes even any considerations at all, are secondary to the reality of their own convictions. Hence, fideism. Most theists (although perhaps not all, depending on exactly how you want to define the word) engage in this to varying degrees.

Although to be fair the same sort of behaviour can certainly manifest outside of the context of theism as well.

I've often wondered why they don't attack the teaching of world history. Maybe they've had that in the back of their minds, if and when they could create a church-state that outlawed the teaching of evolution. At present, for example, jan is alluding to the appearance of Pakicetus 50 MYA without providing the natural historical context for its origins. That's in way parallel to the overall denial of history in general, and as it applies here, to a person's religious heritage -- how the faith even came to exist in its present form.

You mentioned Fideism. Indeed this drove religiosity for the greater part of human civilization, and brings us to the present state of religious denial of science. It allows folks to partition those facts which they choose to analyze, and the ones they allow to lay dormant, as if not connected to anything else. It's one thing as a matter of philosophy, and another as a matter of psychology. Of course it's quintessential denial, which is the subtext of this thread anyway. I hadn't thought about the other folks who follow belief outside of reason, but I imagine that affects us all to some degree. There certainly are plenty of folks expressing it in the form of magic, superstition, the occult, etc.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is there no facility for deletion anymore?

jan.

 

[wegs]

deleted post...

I dislike merry go 'rounds for this very reason: you go in circles, get nowhere, and feel dizzy...lol

I'm getting off the merry go 'round now

 

[Aqueous Id]

I understand that, but I'm just being light-hearted, kind of like when atheist use the term ''sky daddy'', or compare God with the ''spaghetti monster''.

OK.

They don't take God seriously even though it is extremely important to some, and no one really tries to correct them at every point.

I suspect the folks here are pretty well informed about the various views on God and religion. Quite a few have described their own life experiences being brought up in various traditions.

So I figure it's cool to be light-hearted as I don't take whale evolution (especially having seen the movies) seriously. Do you have a problem with that?

I'm not connecting some of the things you say with the necessary logical flow of thoughts. For example, Pakicetus does appear "out of thin air" in the fossil record some 50 MYA. How do you process that fact other than by accepting that it evolved from one of the earlier forms the paleontologists have discovered to be in its ancestry?

''Deny'' is your term. I don't deny darwinian evolution, it just makes no sense to me, past the obvious idea that things resemble other things. See! I don't deny that.

I think denial amounts to some error in logic or fallacy or false belief given to override a fact which is knowable. That would be the focus of a lot of the posts here.

And the idea of how whales evolved strengthens the nonsensical notion of it.

Once we get to where Pakicetus came from, maybe it won't seem like nonsense.

That's only a minimum of the truth. You need to say when it lived, and how it originated. Then you're getting closer to the truth.

I don't, but it seems that you do.

I mean the logic that displaces denial needs to say that. You mentioned that it disappeared (became extinct) but left that gaping hole on the left side of the timeline. Where did it come from? What happened 50 MYA that caused its fossils to appear in the sediment? That would be the natural flow of logic.

 

[Aqueous Id]

jan,

Are you having trouble editing? That happens to me sometimes. I've never figure out if it's the site or my browser, but I've been able to overcome it by using "incognito" browser windows. Also I reported it once and it got fixed.

 

[wegs]

....
deleted post

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,,

You're having a hard time with this aren't you?

I'm not in denial of ''science''. Science is the way we learn about the world around us, it's damned near impossible to deny science.

I just don't accept whale evolution. The Philip Gingerich site you linked, gives no actual science other than his own affirmations. He even admitns to fabricatinlg
fossils to fool people into accepting his idea. This particular account of darwinian evolution doesn't need to be denied by those who don't accept it.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Is there no facility for deletion anymore?

jan.

No.

 

[Jan Ardena]

jan,

Are you having trouble editing? That happens to me sometimes. I've never figure out if it's the site or my browser, but I've been able to overcome it by using "incognito" browser windows. Also I reported it once and it got fixed.

I responded to Yazata with a quote, but realised it was a mistake, but I couldn't delete it.
Back in the day you were able to delete posts if you wanted to, but I couldn't find the button.

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Oh. That's right, we lost that button, didn't we.

 

[Yazata]

I responded to Yazata with a quote, but realised it was a mistake, but I couldn't delete it.

I read your post while it was still there and didn't perceive it as a mistake. Krishna did seem to be saying something to Arjuna that resembled the Muslim occasionalistic constant-divine-recreation idea that I mentioned. As I recall the post, Krishna seemed to acknowledge seeming physical causation, but said that he was the one giving it its inner power and effacacy. I suppose that can be interpreted as the idea that God operates through, and by means of natural causation, so that the events of causation are simultaneously God's acts.

Of course if that reading is right, then Rav's point that theistic evolution appears consistent with it does seem to hold. Biological evolution by natural selection would be the shape that Krishna's activity takes in this world.

Back in the day you were able to delete posts if you wanted to, but I couldn't find the button.

Yeah, I was wondering where it went too.

 

[Rav]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic church defines it's mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Right?

Jesus said this:

“What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “[c]Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother[d], 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

With darwinian evolution there is no ''create male or female'' it just happens to come out like that with or without God.
So if one goes against the gospel of Jesus Christ by contradicting his teaching, how is that theistic?
What's to stop the Pope from more contradiction? Just a thought

I'm not sure I really see the problem for the catholics (or any other sort of Christian theistic evolutionist) here. They already insist that genesis shouldn't be read literally anyway. In fact one of the arguments in favour of that involves the idea that anything more than an allegorical creation story would have been inappropriate for a scientifically illiterate culture. In fact many Christians echo the sentiments of Caesar Baronius who once said "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." And really, the way the Bible is written, from beginning to end, fit's that to a T. So what, exactly, is the problem with an example of God being consistent with himself?

But even if you don't find this compelling, the more pertinent consideration is this: given that you are someone who maintains that it is possible to harmonize biblical scripture with any other major scriptural work, how can you say it is not theistic to be liberal with its interpretation?

Here, let's try something:

"They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." - Qur'an 4:157

How do you reconcile such a verse with the fact that pretty much the entire New Testament explicitly affirms the crucifixion of Jesus, without getting a little liberal (a lot, in fact)? I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to be creative enough to make sense of it all somehow, but in doing so you're doing exactly the same thing the catholics are doing, which is to diverge from scriptural literalism.

So how is it, exactly, that their theism is compromised, but yours isn't?