Does your Theology Align with Reality?

cofty

Thesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct. However, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.

Theologians like John Shelby Spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality. Sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise. We often witness people of faith on this forum who think it is a virtue to hold on to beliefs that science has exposed as impossible.

The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
Homo sapiens evolved form non-human ancestors over million of years.
There was no Adam & Eve, no state of perfection and no fall.
All living things evolved from a common ancestor.
There is no stage of the process of evolution, no example of complexity, that requires an intelligent maker.
There was no global flood.

These are not opinions of equal validity as religious beliefs, these are incontrovertible facts that will still be true in a thousand years. If everybody on earth forgot everything they knew and the process of human lerning had to start again from zero we would eventually arrive at these same facts. They are objetively true and they must trump religious dogma if theists wish to be taken seriously.

Reality is far more exciting, fascinating and satisfying than any supernatural story. It is not necessary to reject the supernatural in order to accommodate reality but it is necessary to allow reality to set the boundaries of your beliefs.

Seraphim23

I agree with all your bullet points because of the evidence that supports them. I do have a small quibble though, and that is the word `supernatural` as it is another word for metaphysical, and reality does suggest that there is more to reality than science alone can define, because science is defined in part by only what can be tested. There are big gaps in understanding though that in some cases point to more that is off limits by logic, and even reason on occasion, which is itself limited by experience. If though by supernatural story’s you are referring to biblical metaphors implied by the bullet points, I agree.

Reality may well be unlimited in scope, indeed there is logic that suggests it must be, and if so science, which works via definitions (else it wouldn’t be very effective) is limited by virtue of those definitions because that is what the act of defining something does. Thus science won’t properly address issues related to infinity, even though mathematics points to infinity as well as logic.

Also no two people can agree on reality as being exactly the same thing, as each point of view will effect what is seen. Relativity shows this to be the case, which calls, philosophically speaking, into question what reality really is. The brain only really receives directly from the outside world electrical signals that are interpreted by the brain. So, is reality only electrical signals? and if not, why not? And what needs to be added in order to make electrical signals more than what they are? The bible doesn’t help with these questions much I agree, but I do think `reality` is a bit too big to be defined by science alone.

slimboyfat

How can you prove there was no Adam and Eve?

And how can you prove there is no, as yet undiscovered, stage of evolution requiring intervention of some sort?

Insisting that a given age for the earth in billions of years to two decimal places is an incontrovertible fact is a fine example of scientistic hubris. There is no general agreement on the age of the Fortingale Yew never mind the planet itself.

Maybe humans evolved from non-humans a million or so years ago. It certainly looks that way. On the other hand maybe humans were planted on earth by extraterrestrials. (I am aware DNA is said to point to a common origin for all life on earth, but is that really certain either? Or just a good construction on the basis of the current understanding?) Or maybe humans have some other origin the details of which are so weird we can't even begin to imagine. However unlikely other origins may appear, can they really be entirely ruled out?

Reality is not so easy to lay to rest as the fundamentalist mind would wish. Using language, it slips and slides out of grasp like a fish just when you've finally got a hold of it. And it's not even the fish itself you are grappling with, but ways of sketching it, on sliding scales.

lost

Seraphim

Slimboy

also there is a Yew tree in Wales.

Llangernyw, male, 4,000/5,000 yrs old.

What about Darwins Dilemma ?

How does one define supernatural ?

Retrovirus

Thesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct. However, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.

As a Thesit if my faith enables me to live more happily and productively, isn't it already more than a "mere fantasy"?

Retro

cofty

Seraphim - I read your 3 paragraphs 3 times and I have no idea what you just said. The middle paragraph is particularly odd.

SBF - You claim there is no such thing as a fact (apart from your assertion that there is no such thing as a fact) I stand by my decision to avoid discussions with you.

Lost - There is an old tree in Wales - so what? In your own words what do you mean by "Darwin's Dilemma" and does it have anything to do with this thread?

Retro - Theology that contradicts reality is doomed to disappoint you in the long term and requires you to live in willful ignorance. That is no way to live.

bohm

slimboyfat: How can you prove there was no Adam and Eve?

Since you have a hard time convincing yourself the earth was not flat a few weeks ago, perhaps you should start with some more basic scientific discoveries before you move on to the more advanced stuff?

EdenOne

Positive initial post, Cofty.

Eden

Retrovirus

Hi Cofty

Theology that contradicts reality is doomed to disappoint you in the long term and requires you to live in willful ignorance. That is no way to live

Does a belief system that contributes to happiness need to contradict "reality"? Must we dogmatically call the current scientific understanding "reality"?

I spoke with an old lady of my religion in the nursing home a couple of years ago. Her life had included much suffering, losing a child and other relatives in the war. She also had a painful congential illness over most of her adult life. When I asked how she kept so serene she just said "He is always with me".

Sure, it's not "scientific". But the peace she felt was"real".

Retro

Knowsnothing

How can you prove there was no Adam and Eve?

Well, only as far as humanity existing for only 6,000 years. So yes, the purported Adam and Eve created by God directly, made 'from the ground', certainly did not exist.

And how can you prove there is no, as yet undiscovered, stage of evolution requiring intervention of some sort?

Evolution destroys any literal view of the Bible, and the Bible is quite specific about creation 'according to kind'. Besides the Bible, what other 'account' does the Creator give to humanity about what's what? Why even use evolution, such a wasteful process, to produce us?

Insisting that a given age for the earth in billions of years to two decimal places is an incontrovertible fact is a fine example of scientistic hubris. There is no

gerneral agreement on the age of the Fortingale Yew never mind the planet itself.

You can place the earth at minimum age given certain constants, such as radioactive isotopes with billions of years of half-life. Living beings are a bit harder to date.

Does your Theology Align with Reality?

Share this