RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:21:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

I do not believe in God. I do believe in a higher power
There's a difference? Please elucidate us all.

Arpig. there are over a Billion people on the planet who believe in a higher power that do not believe in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim 'God'

they are not aetheists. They simply believe in a different higher power.

God/Yaweh/Allah (it's the same entity as they're all children of Abraham) isn't the only deity in the market. There are several others.

Atheist means "believes in NO prime deity"




eihwaz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:27:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL eihwaz To say that belief in a God which created the physical universe (including evolution) and the theory of evolution are compatible is not to say that one necessarily depends on, or has anything to do with, the other. Epistemologically, the two are independent: As is true for all science, evolution doesn't require God (or any supernatural agency) nor does belief in God require evolution. But neither do they necessarily conflict. As I said in my initial response, one of the objections some religionists have had to evolution is that it (as is true of all science) has no teleology (ultimate purpose). Subscribing to Darwinian evolution entails acceptance of random variability and natural selection as mechanisms of evolutionary change. Whether God as creator informs evolutionary change via those mechanisms is simply not a scientific question.

I notice your use of the qualifiers "one of the objections" and "some religionists."

"one of the objections" -- I cited three in an earlier response:
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz (post 13)
  • Evolution is definitely not compatible with a literalistic reading of Genesis.
  • Many Christians believe that God's purpose pervades, and operates through, even [the] most minute elements of the creation.  Evolution, on the other hand, is non-teleological (doesn't by itself have an ultimate purpose) and involves random events.
  • Many Christians feel that evolution's proposition that humans evolved from other species rather than being created de novo [sic] by God undermines humanity's divine specialness.

to which I would add a fourth, to wit, that science has no need of a 'God'.

"some religionists" -- These days, many people of faith -- perhaps the majority, although I haven't researched this -- have no problem reconciling their religious belief with evolution or science in general.  It's a common error of many anti-religionists to caricature all people of faith as anti-science fundamentalist Biblical literalists.  Hence my use of the qualifier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The major objection to Natural Selection is that it blows a hole into the notion of Special Creation dearly held by biblical literalists. In that respect Natural Selection is highly incompatible with Faith in a Creator God.

I hope it's clear that we agree here.
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
So, can we please stop dancing around the epistemology bush and confront the issue more forthrightly?

A question that several other respondents and I inferred from the OP is whether belief in an ultimate divine Creator necessarily conflicts with evolution.  My position, and that of several others, is that belief in a 'Creator God' and evolution are not necessarily incompatible (apologies for the double negative) -- in particular, if you're not a biblical literalist.

What issue do you assert I'm evading?

It's great to see you back on the boards.  I enjoyed our earlier exchange on this topic.





Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:28:54 PM)

quote:

Of course. I dont believe in "God". My belief is that all things, living and non, have a spirit. Many have termed this the "Great Mystery". I prefer the easier explanation of a higher power. Something that is bigger than me, than us all. This is the "religion" (for lack of a better word) of my father's father, one my father does not embrace, but one I have chosen.
Fair enough tazzy. But you really should be clearer in your posts, it would avoid much misunderstanding.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:35:51 PM)

Its amazed me that, until today, no one has questioned me on what I did believe in. I figured it would come up sooner or later... lol

And since I have repeatedly said I am not religious, but I am spiritual, that I do not believe in "god" and that I do not follow a formal religion, I figured I did cover all the basics.

If someone didnt understand, they should have asked. But those things do not say atheist.




Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:37:00 PM)

quote:

Arpig. there are over a Billion people on the planet who believe in a higher power that do not believe in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim 'God'
Agreed Hill, but that's not what she said. What she said was quite all inclusive:
quote:

Please, remember, I dont believe in God.
No quotes around the God, no defining the deity she doesn't believe in as the Abrahamic one or any other one, simply a denial of God.

Given the unequivocal nature of the statement and the paucity of further explanatory information, one could be forgiven for interpretting it to mean she does not believe in the existence of a higher power of any sort.

For what it's worth, I still find her explanation slightly intellectually dishonest, to differentiate between a god and her higher power...it seems more of a dodge than anything else.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:37:42 PM)

That works for Me




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:38:22 PM)

A dodge? Wow. Something you dont understand is a dodge? Thats hardly fair, Arpig.




Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:40:49 PM)

Then explain how your "higher power" is different from a deity?




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 8:47:08 PM)

I just did. The spirit is us.. among us.. through us.. a part of us... it is we who affect the spirit, not the other way around. Its much like karma. What you put in, you get out. The Natives believe in being kind to all things, taking only what is needed to survive, then celebrating the spirit that gave its life so the "people" could survive. That the earth was a gift to the "people" and should be treated as such.

Its a spirituality more than a "religion".




Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 9:06:26 PM)

So basically a form of pantheism. Pantheism is a form of theism, and therfore you do in fact believe in a deity. That's why I said it was a dodge to say you don't believe in God, and why I think its a fair statement.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 9:28:06 PM)

Thats not how I have learned its definition.



Pantheism is older than Buddhism or Christianity, and may already count hundreds of millions among its members. Most Taoists are pantheists, along with many Chinese, Japanese and Western Buddhists, deep ecologists, pagans, animists, followers of many native religions, and many Unitarian Universalists. The central philosophical scriptures of Hinduism are pantheistic. Many atheists and humanists may be naturalistic pantheists without realizing it.

........

What Pantheism believes
At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as the ultimate focus of reverence, and for the natural earth as sacred.

Scientific or Natural Pantheism - Pan for short - has a naturalistic approach which simply accepts and reveres the universe and nature just as they are, and promotes an ethic of respect for human and animal rights and for lifestyles that sustain rather than destroy the environment.

When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.
We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day be reabsorbed into the universe.
We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the chance to see paradise face to face. If we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the numinous is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head, or outside this reality - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a glass darkly.
The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in many of the ways that believers relate to their God, minus the grovelling worship or the expectation that there is some being out there who can answer our prayers.

When pantheists say WE REVERE AND CARE FOR NATURE, we mean it with just as much commitment and reverence as believers speaking about their church or mosque, or the relics of their saints. But again we are not talking about supernatural beings. We are saying this:

We are part of nature. Nature made us and at our death we will be reabsorbed into nature. We are at home in nature and in our bodies. This is where we belong. This is the only place where we can find and make our paradise, not in some imaginary world on the other side of the grave. If nature is the only paradise, then separation from nature is the only hell. When we destroy nature, we create hell on earth for other species and for ourselves.

Nature is our mother, our home, our security, our peace, our past and our future. We should treat natural things and habitats as believers treat their temples and shrines, as sacred - to be revered and preserved in all their intricate and fragile beauty.


http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

quote:

Pantheism is a form of theism


Are you sure you didnt mean panenthism?




Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 9:40:07 PM)

quote:

Are you sure you didnt mean panenthism?
Possibly....and after a quick google, yes I did mean panentheism. [:)]

I have been misusing the term for decades...this place is educational, that's for sure.[:D]




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 9:40:58 PM)

But I dont believe in panentheism.




tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 10:12:56 PM)

.




Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 10:19:40 PM)

quote:

But I dont believe in panentheism.
Fine whatever tazzy, maybe on your planet. But what you described as your belief system is pretty much just a minor variant according to the definition I read. You can define your religious beliefs any way you want to.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 10:21:06 PM)

I guess Buddhists and Thaoists are also theists.

Guess you are defining every belief tonight. I dont question your beliefs, or lack of them. How dare you question mine when you dont even attempt to understand what it is I do believe in.




Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 10:32:07 PM)

quote:

How dare you question mine when you dont even attempt to understand what it is I do believe in.
How dare I? [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]
After 4 years on the site you still don't know me, do you?

You defined your beliefs, that definition matched the description I read, you denied the similarity. And you honestly expect me to respect that sort of semantic legeredemain? Sorry, not going to happen.




Ishtarr -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 10:42:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

But I dont believe in panentheism.
Fine whatever tazzy, maybe on your planet. But what you described as your belief system is pretty much just a minor variant according to the definition I read. You can define your religious beliefs any way you want to.


As a panentheist, I would very strongly disagree with that.

The nuance can be expressed very simplistically, but they go rather deep when considering the consequences.

What tazzy describes is very clearly not a panenteist view, and not a deity driven view, because her spiritual believes are limited and contained by the universe of itself, and in panentheism "God/spirituality" goes beyond that.

Very specifically so the main difference between the two is that panentheists believe that there is more to "God/spirituality" than the universe, while pantheists believe that "God/spirituality" is contained within the universe itself and thus cannot be apart or more than the universe as a whole.
Creator Gods are incompatible with pantheism, but not with panentheism for example, though neither one require the existence of a deity at all, because neither one requirs "God/spirituality" to be expressed in the form of a "being".

Ishtar




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 10:42:54 PM)

Where pantheism is considered as an alternative to theism it involves a denial of at least one, and usually both, central theistic claims. Theism is the belief in a “personal” God which in some sense is separate from (transcends) the world. Pantheists usually deny the existence of a personal God. They deny the existence of a “minded” Being that possesses the characteristic properties of a “person,” such as having intentional states, and the associated capacities like the ability to make decisions. Taken as an alternative to, and denial of, theism and atheism, pantheists deny that what they mean by God (i.e. an all-inclusive divine Unity) is completely transcendent. They deny that God is “totally other” than the world or ontologically distinct from it. The dichotomy between transcendence and immanence has been a principal source of philosophical and religious concern in Western and non-Western traditions; and all major traditions have at times turned to pantheism as a way of resolving difficulties associated with the theistic notion of a transcendent deity or reality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

I have to admit my belief is closest to pantheism.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 10:47:00 PM)

To be honest, Ishtarr, Im learning these concepts as they are introduced. I had no clue about pantheism or panentheism until tonight. I just know it as a nature based belief... nothing greater than nature.

I thank you for putting it so simply.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875