Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?

by nicolaou 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  nicolaou

  BTS, I hardly think I'm hostile, this is my first posting since August last year! I feel that this needs a little thought.

  drwatson was correct when he said that "scientifically speaking, evolution has nothing to do with god". That is true, anyone can see that evolution does not answer the question of the origin of life and, if believers are going to be equally honest, they must admit that god does not provide the answer either. And yet, drwatsons statement is curiously incompatible with IP SEC's following comment that "evolution has nothing to do with the belief in god/no belief in god debate". Sorry IP but I just don't buy that. Can you not see the implications were evolution to be conclusively proven as false?!

  With respect Farkel this isn't a straw man argument either, though I can see how it might at first look like one. The theories of god and evolution are not strictly exclusive but marrying them together drives a bulldozer through most of the core Judeo/Christian beliefs - Islam too I would suspect.

  Redemption, original sin, the ransom, resurrection - what becomes of all these tenets in the light of our evolutionary past? What of the Scriptural accounts of Man's direct creation by god? And if god did use evolution, at what point did he decide that he had beings who existed in his image?

  So many questions...
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Can you not see the implications were evolution to be conclusively proven as false?!

  I don't. The "implications" are the things that would threaten your worldview. "We" would develop an alternative theory to explain biological diversity. Evolution is just a theory for me, like the laws of motion or relativity. A good one, but not the law of my life. I can jettison one concept easily in my mind if something better comes long. You don't have it so good, you are emotionally invested in a theory that helps justify your atheism. You have a "religious" attachment. To paraphrase Dawkins, "evolution made atheism respectable". That's your problem, not mine.

  Redemption, original sin, the ransom, resurrection - what becomes of all these tenets in the light of our evolutionary past? What of the Scriptural accounts of Man's direct creation by god? And if god did use evolution, at what point did he decide that he had beings who existed in his image?

  These are all spiritual concepts, dealing with the immaterial, the transcendent, and the immanent. They have nothing to do with a naturalistic theory dealing strictly with the interactions of organic matter. Biological evolution, the modern synthesis, has no meaning beyond what we attach to it.

  Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is. C. Jung

  BTS
• 

  nicolaou

  I can jettison one concept easily in my mind if something better comes long. You don't have it so good,

  Erm, I think I did precisely that a few years ago

  These are all spiritual concepts, dealing with the immaterial, the transcendent, and the immanent. They have nothing to do with a naturalistic theory dealing strictly with the interactions of organic matter.

  How convenient for you. The truth is a bit more far reaching than that, they have nothing to do with reality at all! They are constructions which retain validity only within a tightly regulated construct, a 'spiritual' creation which cannot be verified, measured or tested.

  "You are emotionally invested in a theory (god) that helps justify your faith. You have a "religious" attachment."
• 

  Narkissos

  Nicolaou,

  Part of the problem, imo, is that your idea of theism -- even limiting the scope of the discussion to monotheism -- is far too monolithic. If I dare say, theism itself has always been evolving, adapting itself nilly-willy but successfully to the philosophical or scientific ideas of every period of its history through creative (re-)interpretation. The very doctrine of creation (and, more specifically, creatio ex nihilo, vs. mythological Chaoskampf or organization of eternal matter in philosophical fashion) imposed itself gradually and is subject to reinterpretation as every notion ever connected with theism. At some point having no issues with Copernician cosmology might have sounded "lame" for Christians. Now this is hardly the case. Afaik Darwin was a theist, and the creative integration of Christian theology and evolutionism is not a novelty (think of Teilhard de Chardin). In France these days creationism (as opposed to biological evolution) is an ultra-minoritary phenomenon, limited to a handful of fringe fundamentalistic groups in both Evangelicalism (mostly under American influence) and, more recently, Islam. This is not an issue in the Catholic church, nor in mainstream Protestant churches (even among the most conservative), i.e., for the vast majority of Christians in this country. So, from here, it definitely doesn't sound "lame".
• 

  nicolaou

  Didier, I don't care whether the integration of Christian theology and evolutionism is 'creative' or not. I don't care if theism has been successful in adapting itself to scientific ideas or not - what I care about is what is true - or not.

  If biological evolution is not an issue for the majority of Christians then good for them - but if they are willing to invite Darwin to their table they've no right to complain at the nature of the after dinner conversation.

  Nic'
• 

  hamilcarr

  Despite the adaptation theism has been stripped down to its bare essentials and is shown to be barren.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Barren? I suppose that could depend on the strain of theism. But it seems very fertile to me.

  BTS
• 

  hamilcarr

  I'd like to devote more space, and maybe a separate thread, to this subject, but due to lack of time and ease to discuss these topics in English, I'm going to confine myself to these loose thoughts.

  I agree with Narkissos that theism has wonderfully adapted to evolving hermeneutics, but I'm convinced that this has led to a gradual stripping down of the original --- and richer --- meanings of religion as a collective ritual to individualistic senseless ramblings. The remaining bare essentials are still powerful, but lack any possibilities to evolve even further, weak theology being, imho, the best, but literally vigorless, attempt.

  Why barren and definitely not fertile? Because it's centred around an unavoidable premise --- the existence of God. No matter its creativity, this presupposition won't change. (The same is true for atheism and the non-existence of God, btw). Is there anything beyond the barren? Probably not Eliot's shanti nor atheism but Nietzsche's dancing (and playing) child. Between the barren and the fertile lies Derrida's "event":

  Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an "event," if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural-or structuralist-thought to reduce or to suspect. But let me use the term "event" anyway, employing it with caution and as if in quotation marks. In this sense, this event will have the exterior form of a rupture and a redoubling.

  [...] Nevertheless, up until the event which I wish to mark out and define, structure-or rather the structurality of structure-although it has always been involved, has always been neutralized or reduced, and this by a process of giving it a center or referring it to a point of presence, a fixed origin. The function of this center was not only to orient, balance, and organize the structure-one cannot in fact conceive of an unorganized structure-but above all to make sure that the organizing principle of the structure would limit what we might call the freeplay of the structure. No doubt that by orienting and organizing the coherence of the system, the center of a structure permits the freeplay of its elements inside the total form. And even today the notion of a structure lacking any center represents the unthinkable itself.

  Nevertheless, the center also closes off the freeplay it opens up and makes possible.
• 

  drwtsn32

  "evolution has nothing to do with the belief in god/no belief in god debate". Sorry IP but I just don't buy that. Can you not see the implications were evolution to be conclusively proven as false?!

  Yes, if evolution were proved false it would undoubtedly be seen as "evidence" for god by many. In reality that just demonstrates how weak all the evidence is for a higher being. The existence of god is not "strengthened" by the inability to explain something. That seems to be a common reaction though among people: "science can't explain XX so that means God did it!"

  Man has this insatiable desire to answer all questions, and apparently "God did it" brings comfort to some people. They can't handle "we don't know" being the only answer available. I am excited by all we don't know; it would surely be a boring universe if we had everything figured out.
• 

  cameo-d

  For some reason this makes me think of the Mormon teachings.

  They are very concerned with genetics and family histories and it plays a big part in their religion.

  From what I understand, they believe that those who survive Armageddon will "evolve' into gods and will eventually have their own planets and universes to rule.

  It is a biological evolution based on genetic qualifications and survival of the fittest. (If anyone can add to this info or correct me if I am wrong, please do.)

  from info on The Godmakers:

  “the worthy Mormon can become a god himself in the life hereafter, ruling over his own planet, with a number of goddess wives.”

  Mormons believe that there are “billions of these highly evolved humanoids” in space ruling their own planets

  The Mormon Illusion,” states that “their whole doctrine flows from this about becoming gods.”

  A reenactment of temple rituals is shown, [6] which are said to be performed for the purpose of “evangelizing the dead.” The narrator states that without these rituals, “no one can enter the presence of Joseph Smith and become a god.” In addition, the narrator states that Mormons are encouraged to contact the dead and that it is common for demons to appear to Mormons asking them to perform family history work for them.