Religion
Related: About this forumEvolution-Accepting Christian Professor: Bible Doesn’t Have to Conflict with Scientific Realities
January 2, 2015
by Rachel Ford
Jeff Hardin is Chairman of the University of Wisconsins Zoology Department and a scientist who recognizes the reality of evolution.
Hes also a Christian, who believes in the claims of the Bible.
Hardins knowledge of science leads him to reject literalist interpretations of the Bible, like Young Earth Creationism, which make claims about science and nature that are distinctly at odds with the evidence. When the Bible is read in such a fashion as to make it conflict with reality, he believes, it is read wrongly. And he makes it his mission to show that the two, science and religion, are highly compatible.
Hardin calls himself an Evolutionary Creationist. Writing for Slate, William Saletan describes Hardins brand of Creationism this way:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/01/02/evolution-accepting-christian-professor-says-the-bible-doesnt-have-to-conflict-with-scientific-realities/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/evolutionary_creationism_jeff_hardin_reconciles_evangelical_christianity.html
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)That was before the Catholic Church was dragged violently to the right.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the US's main feature is that mainstream churches (all firmly Darwinian and heliocentric) are a minority here--it's part of the long DIY religious tradition here
cbayer
(146,218 posts)still problematic.
Adapting interpretations of the bible to scientific evidence is better than denying that evidence. Anything that helps believers embrace science is also a good thing.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)The only people who should find this problematic are those who see all questions as 1 or 0, black or white. Dogmatic ideologues, closed minded purists, might have a problem freethinkers should have no problem.
JDDavis
(725 posts)maybe I should report you
Oh ....never mind
All religions do that. Never mind.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And what do all religions do?
I know it was late when you wrote this, but I really think some explanation is in order.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)where there really is not room for a guiding hand.
Evolution depends on randomness. It is a cornerstone of the theory. Once you introduce a guiding force, you have really rejected the whole theory, no matter what you say.
I am not a dogmatic ideologue nor a close minded purist, and I have problems with it.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)spark, inception, beginning, instigation, what follows does not need guiding or even demand guiding but can be random.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Evolution depends on randome mutations. That theory is not consistent with there being a spark or an inception or anything like that. In fact, it has no room for that whatsoever.
One would have to provide evidence that evolution is something different than what we understand it to be before you could incorporate these ideas.
I think he is wrong.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I' sorry but that is exactly your thinking explained.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)How much do you understand about evolution? Tell me how you think this theory can be seriously incorporated with our current understanding of evolution.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)I'm curious as to what empirical evidence you can cite that demonstrates this dependence. It is not a simple matter - maybe impossible - to show that a system is random. From the Causal Determinism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia (note SDIC is sensitive dependence on initial conditions):
In the example of the billiard table, we know that we are starting out with a Newtonian deterministic systemthat is how the idealized example is defined. But chaotic dynamical systems come in a great variety of types: discrete and continuous, 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional and higher, particle-based and fluid-flow-based, and so on. Mathematically, we may suppose all of these systems share SDIC. But generally they will also display properties such as unpredictability, non-computability, Kolmogorov-random behavior, and so onat least when looked at in the right way, or at the right level of detail. This leads to the following epistemic difficulty: if, in nature, we find a type of system that displays some or all of these latter properties, how can we decide which of the following two hypotheses is true?
1. The system is governed by genuinely stochastic, indeterministic laws (or by no laws at all), i.e., its apparent randomness is in fact real randomness.
2. The system is governed by underlying deterministic laws, but is chaotic.
In other words, once one appreciates the varieties of chaotic dynamical systems that exist, mathematically speaking, it starts to look difficultmaybe impossiblefor us to ever decide whether apparently random behavior in nature arises from genuine stochasticity, or rather from deterministic chaos. Patrick Suppes (1993, 1996) argues, on the basis of theorems proven by Ornstein (1974 and later) that There are processes which can equally well be analyzed as deterministic systems of classical mechanics or as indeterministic semi-Markov processes, no matter how many observations are made. And he concludes that Deterministic metaphysicians can comfortably hold to their view knowing they cannot be empirically refuted, but so can indeterministic ones as well. (Suppes (1993), p. 254)
...
An excerpt from Evolution and Chance at Talk Origins, an article that begins with the claim: Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process:
Another way to say this is just that the changes that get encoded in genes occur with no forethought to the eventual needs of the organism (or the species) that carries those genes. A gene change (for instance, a point mutation -- a mistake at a single locus of the genetic structure) may change in any way permitted by the laws of molecular biology, according to the specific causes at the time. This may result in a phenotypic change that may be better suited to current conditions than the others about at the time. However, it probably won't. So far as the local environment is concerned, the change is the result of a random process, a black box that isn't driven with reference to things going on at the level of the environment. It's not really random, of course, because it is the result of causal processes, but so far as natural selection is concerned, it may as well be.
Replication Rules must involve what Dawkins calls "high fidelity" replication. Too high a rate of error would introduce too much "noise" into the replication process for selection to work effectively. Error rates in replication are indeed very low ("Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation", Chris Colby's Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ). Each error is the result of purely physical processes and can at the micro level be theoretically predicted, although in the real world we could never predict the sorts of mutations and transcription errors that will result for any particular case, from a lack of information.
Replication Rules are not random in the sense that, say, Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty or quantum mechanics is sometimes supposed to show the fundamental randomness of reality. They are merely random with respect to natural selection. Natural selection is not random: it is the determinate result of sorting processes according to relative fitness. It is stochastic, in the sense that better engineered features can fail for reasons of probability (they may meet accidents unrelated to their fitness), but that poses no greater threat to the scientific nature of evolution than it does for, say, subatomic physics or information theory.
There are scientists and philosophers who think that probabilities represent a real indeterminacy in the world; that even if you had, in principle, full information about all causes for a system, it would still be possible only to predict the distribution curve rather than the outcome for any single object. This is called the propensity interpretation (Beatty and Finsen in Ruse 1989), and holds that real things have a real propensity to behave in a range of ways rather than a real set of properties that will specify a strict determined outcome. Whether this is true or not is not relevant to evolution as such, for if it is true, then it is true of everything, and not just living things.
...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think either of your excerpts dispute that.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)My first excerpt explicitly states that we do not, and, at present, cannot, know that:
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Don't resolve the conflict.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)You've obviously got an interest in the topics. I, for one, would like to hear more of your point of view.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)We cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that a perfectly omnipotent supernatural god designed the world, but evolution, in fact, and in 'spirit', defies the very idea of a designer. They are incompatible.
If you have traits that are passed on from one generation to the next, and you have selective pressure against those traits, you will get the appearance of design, because the 'winning' trait set that reproduced the best, will be well-adapted to the selective conditions that restrained or eliminated other trait sets.
It breaks the whole idea for the design itself to be arbitrary will, rather than simple adaptation. If evolution works, and is true, then there is nothing left for a supernatural god to do at all. To claim the reins are in god's hands, is not compatible with evolution. CANNOT be compatible with evolution.
This is not a simple matter of literalist reading of the bible, and herp derp, the order of creation is all wrong, etc.
Science has given us a new possibility, a view into a naturalistic world that arrived at its current state via purely natural processes, without a guiding hand at all. Not even at the ignition of space/time. The man in the article of the OP is simply engaged (as I dimissively said) in a game of 'god of the gaps', stuffing god into a smaller, more obscure hole.
The problem is, there aren't many holes left (holes being lack of understanding on our part) and they are shrinking every year.
There is very little left for 'god' to do at all, at this point, from a standpoint of humans trying to paste over the gaps in our knowledge with some sort of explanation.
If/when we get to the point that there is nothing that cannot be explained without the supernatural, and we can't find any evidence of supernatural activity, and we can't find any evidence of supernatural beings whether they 'did' anything to the universe or not, what then?
That time is approaching, my friend. Most likely in our own lifetimes.
JDDavis
(725 posts)forum on religion?
Who let this dog in?
pinto
(106,886 posts)We find more evidence of randomness at play in the evolutionary process, I think. Simple dead ends, benign evolutionary changes that seem to serve no vital purpose, etc. We're on the same page there.
I see what you meant with "god of the gaps". Your first comment seemed an off-hand dismissal. Thanks for expanding on that.
As far as the initiation (or occurrence) of space/time, I can't make any suppositions. There seems to be at least a handful of hypotheses among those who have made the query their life's professional work. Talk about gaps...It interests me, but much of the physics goes way over my head.
Thanks for your response.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)But it is true for any religions that believe in an interventionist god.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)edhopper
(33,226 posts)Random mutations enable certain individuals to survive and breed. There is no direction, only the ability to live long enough to have offspring in a given environment.
If God is behind those mutations, then they are not random and it isn't evolution.
So they are still incompatible.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)edhopper
(33,226 posts)how specific you were when evolution was discussed a little while ago. Being an agnostic, I imaging you don't see the need for God in any explanation.
I think "God guided evolution" is still intelligent design.
I have to go with Tyson on this.
God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are right, I don't see the need for god in any evolutionary explanation. As I said, I think the insertion of god turns evolution on it's head and is akin to intelligent design, as you say.
But, much as I adore NDT, I think his statement here is grossly overreaching. It assumes we know so much when, in fact, we know so very little. I also think that every time science seems to close the door on an issue, 10 more doors open up. If anything, scientific ignorance grows exponentially.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)the times God was evoked as an explanation are fast receding, and as we go forward, the questions are not ones where a god fits any potential answer.
What is dark matter or dark energy? God? It's no longer a viable answer.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)We ask questions now that couldn't have even been formulated 100 years ago, let alone thousands of years ago.
I understand clearly that god has been invoked as an explanation for many things that are now understood, but I think we understand only leads to more questions and bigger areas of current ignorance.
Surely you are not suggesting that we are close to answering all the questions that could be asked?
edhopper
(33,226 posts)I think he meant that "God is an ever receding pocket" take that as a whole subject.
It's God that is receding, as used as an explanation, not the amount we don't know.
(Though the amount we don't know is another discussion. If there is a finite amount we don't know than we know more now than before, we might be more aware of what we don't know, but the percentage, however small, is larger now. But this is way besides the point)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think it's nice that this quote fits what you hope is true, but it really has no underlying justification.
I have found this quote in context and it reads quite differently.
He is stating this in response to the god of the gaps argument and not positing it as his belief.
Which is actually a relief, because this comment, taken out of context, doesn't really jibe with what I know about him.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)fits my interpretation, at least it does to me.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He is saying, "Beware, this is the argument that will come back to bite you if you take a god of the gaps approach". He is not endorsing that position at all, just putting it out there as a potential and problematic response.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)I need to see the larger context.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It was an interview, possibly with Bill O'Reilly. It was difficult for me to find the whole quote, but if you need more, then you need to do the legwork to find it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I may be able to later tonight when they free up some bandwidth.
I tried to find a transcript but to no avail.
How do you see it after watching the video?
edhopper
(33,226 posts)those that use the God of the Gaps argument, that is, invoking God as an explanation will find an ever receding etc...
He's telling people, like O'Reilly, if that is your evidence for God, it's a bad one. Invoking God to explain scientific questions might not be a wise choice.
BTW the interview is not with Bill O.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)We may have to agree to disagree here, but I am pretty familiar with NDT's very thoughtful and circumspect perspective on religion. He is challenging the god of the gaps argument because it is weak, but not challenging the idea of god.
He's agnostic. He doesn't take any position when it comes to the existence of a god.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)those who invoke God in relation to evolution.
So we do agree.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)Here is a discussion where he lays it out really fully:
http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs103-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-why-he-doesnt-call-himself-an-a.html
It's just audio so maybe you'll have better luck than if it were video.
No time right now but will expound later if I can.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In what way do you think we disagree on the definition of agnostic?
eomer
(3,845 posts)This is because he doesn't want people to impute what he believes or what he thinks based on their portfolio of ideas associated with any label.
Regarding his views on the existence of God, here are his own words (from the audio I linked a few posts upthread):
Massimo: OK, from that perspective, let's say you don't believe in gods for...
NDT: That's not what I said, I said I remain unconvinced. I prefer my words, I don't use the word "believe" because I'm very evidence-driven and when you're evidence-driven the word "belief" has very little role in your life. So I'm unconvinced by any statements or evidence put forth by others in the claim of the existence of a powerful entity that is in control of the world or had even started the world, whether or not they're still in control.
Massimo: I take your meaning. The reason I use the word belief, actually, is because yes you're right of course, especially within this kind of conversation, as soon as you start talking about belief then you're talking about faith and you're, blah, blah, blah.
NDT: Well, you're talking about thoughts without evidence to support it.
Massimo: Right, but in fact I was I suppose using the word belief in a sort of bayesian sense, that is proportion your belief to the evidence, and in that case it's a legitimate word to use in this case, and if you don't like it we can use another one but the question is, let's say that instead of gods we're talking about unicorns - do you think that you're just as unconvinced about unicorns as you are about gods or is there a difference...
NDT: Yeah, that's about right. I think of, you know, cryptozoology, I think is where that comes from, you know, Nessi and the abominable snowman...
These thoughts on the existence of a god are exactly the same as mine and, I would guess, almost all the self-described atheists who post regularly in this group. We're all of us unconvinced by any statements or evidence put forth. And that's it.
NDT doesn't want us imputing beliefs or thoughts to him, he wants to be able to speak for himself. And so he doesn't really want to be called an agnostic, either. It's just the word that in his opinion gives the closest idea of his conduct. But many (maybe most) of us would get the wrong impression from the label agnostic about what his thoughts are on the existence of a god. So maybe we can let his own words be the complete answer and skip the label.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He starts out by pointing out that he rarely talks about religion or god or things spiritual and seems reluctant to do it at all.
But I agree that the main thrust of his remarks are that he would rather not be labeled at all.
I love the phrase "I remain unconvinced". He does not like the word "believe" and does not want to associate with it. That really resonates with me personally.
Whether his thoughts are exactly the same as most of the atheists who post regularly here is highly speculative and I would not make that assumption.
It has been repeatedly argued here that one must be either atheist and theist. I strongly object to that and am glad that I am in such good company.
Like him, I don't really want to be labeled either, but agnostic comes closest to describing my position.
I am with you about skipping the label and very much in favor of letting him define himself however he likes.
When it comes to a deity, I remain unconvinced.
eomer
(3,845 posts)But I do think I'll stop with that large chunk I sent you.
If you can somehow listen to the whole thing in the future you'll find the rest is just as interesting. One particular thing I would point to is that it makes an effective argument for keeping the exchange friendly. One way it makes that argument for staying friendly effective is by staying friendly as it makes it. I think I could benefit by being more like their exchange and, if I can say so in a friendly way, you probably could too.
BTW, just got back from a visit with my wife to Mexico City. We had a great time!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)instead of this shoe string I am currently using, lol.
It is classy folks like NDT that should inspire us all to be civil and friendly. When I see people around here who behave like that, I see that they are much more effective in the long run. I could also benefit from being more like they were.
Glad you were able to go to Mexico City. This is such an extraordinary country in so many ways. I hope that you will have the opportunity to explore more of it.
Thanks again for the transcription. It was way beyond the call of duty.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Read this article for what I think is a more accurate take on his point.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/neil-degrasse-tyson-god-has-to-mean-more-to-you-than-just-where-science-has-yet-to-tread/
edhopper
(33,226 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)edhopper
(33,226 posts)to me he is arguing against the God of the gaps argument. That is those who say God did it, not those who reject God as an explanation.
What do you think he is saying?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This struck me as strange, because it is not consistent with what I have heard him say previously. He generally does not argue about the existence of god and holds himself out as agnostic.
What I see is that he was telling the interviewer, O'Reilly I think, that if he took the god of the gaps position, he was likely to encounter this argument. He was not saying he endorsed that argument at all.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)I think he is presenting this argument. And I think he very much presents it as his.
I think he is an atheist, just one that doesn't make that an issue, unless it is in a scientific debate.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You want him to be an atheist, but he is not.
Did you know that I'm really not a non-believer? It's true. Just ask some of the people that hang out around here.
Some say that I am actually a fundamentalist christian and one has asked me to deny christ three times!
I really object to people telling others what they are when it comes to religious beliefs.
Since I can't watch the video, I can't comment on the content, but I will try to later.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)I was not aware of his direct comments on it.
It was just my opinion based on other things he said.
He does say he is agnostic, but he also says he has no belief in a God.What he is more concerned with is God having no part of a scientific discussion.
Agnostic is what he chooses.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's just their opinion based on things I say (and their faith based beliefs about what a nonbeliever should be like).
He (and I) should be allowed to define ourselves. His (and my) reasons for not wanting to be identified as atheist are personal and I strongly maintain that they are valid.
He (and I) are both very invested in keeping god out of science.
And I have a huge crush on him.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)that God is not part of his thoughts. He doesn't want to get into the debate about the existence of God. Technically he is an atheist, in that he has no belief in God, but I think he sees atheists today as much more affirmative about the nonexistence and to him that is not important.
He is saying, when you have evidence, I'll reconsider, until then it is not worth my time thinking about.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And he most definitely doesn't want to debate existence of god because he is agnostic.
He is not an atheist and I find statements that continue to label others as something other than what they label themselves obnoxious. It's much more about their own agenda than anything else.
I will not get into the useless debate about agnostic only being a modifier. It's stupid and it is used to assign people to teams when they don't want to be assigned to a team. One does not have to be an atheist or a theist. One can simply not really care either way.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)I would think-being a sensible person--that NDT does not want to immediately want to associate himself with atheists--his priorities lie outside of debating the reality of a god. He is doing well working outside of that.
In fact--his appeal, I think, would be more limited if he did limit himself to the debates and arguments between believers and nonbelievers.
I doubt-VERY SERIOUSLY-that he does not care. How could a thinking person not care about this question?
Really-this is a very serious issue--I can't imagine that an intelligent person simply say "I dunno" and is satisfied with that.
NDT is most certainly not saying he does not care--he does not want it to distract from the more important science education he values.
Also--you are an intelligent person yourself. How could this question not interest you?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He cares a great deal about the relationship between science and religion and does a great deal of work on making the case for keeping religion separate and not allowing it to interfere with science.
As to the question, I am fond of the term apatheist because it best describes how I feel. I don't know if there is a god or not and I don't care if there is a god or not. In addition, I don't particularly care whether anyone else believes in a god or not as long as their actions do not intrude on the rights of others, including the right to be from from religion.
Whether NDT cares whether there is a god or not is not something he talks about. What he cares about is how religious belief intersects with science.
Where do you stand on these matters?
digonswine
(1,485 posts)--I have just returned from a long trip, however, where I have been awake for about 36 hours. ----I will address this in the morning-take care until then!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Will see you on the other side.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)I am a science teacher--one subject I teach is Biology to high school sophomores.
Obviously, during the year, evolution is treated like the biological cornerstone that it is.
I treat the topic as fact-at least as close as you can get to fact in science--which is how it should be addressed.
Naturally, I steer WAY clear of just how much of what the students have learned in church contradicts what is known about life on earth.
The kids pick up on these contradictions sometimes. A few that are actually paying attention cannot fail to see that the two ideas are in conflict--they sometimes bring these up.
Now---my goal in class and life in general is to be as honest as possible in all things, but I can't just tell them that what they have learned is incorrect.
So I am forced to do the intellectually dishonest tap dance around the conflicts.
"There does not need to be a conflict between science and the bible."
"The catholic church has accepted the idea of evolution."
"It is possible that god guides it."
"A day in the bible may not mean and actual day as we think of them."
Now, to be sure, I do not believe those things AT ALL. I have, though, said a version of the above in the past to students-sacrificing my need for honesty in order to not alienate believers too much--turning them off the the whole concept of evolution.
It bugs me to have to do that.
So what a person believes can act as a road-block to greater learning--and to do this to kids that are currently formulating and refining their views of the nature of reality and learning the steps and values involved in critical thinking is doubly troubling.
I agree with a statement you made about people believing what they want as long as it harms no one(or something like that!)--but teaching this stuff to kids does just that.
Anyway--I have classes to prep--take care.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It sounds really tricky.
I think you are walking that tricky tightrope that people like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson have talked about.
There is a need to teach science in general, and evolution in particular, in a way that is not perceived as threatening to those with strong and contradictory religious beliefs.
Even though you may not believe the things you list, I don't see a problem with offering them as options for letting the kids continue to identity with their religion and embrace science.
But I can see how it is very tricky and potentially very problematic.
Thanks for what you do and how you are doing it.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)I need to separate how I feel about those excuses from the doors they may allow to be opened to students.
To me personally, the following are intellectually dishonest dodges that allow folks to eat their cake and have it, too.
"There does not need to be a conflict between science and the bible."
"The catholic church has accepted the idea of evolution."
"It is possible that god guides it."
"A day in the bible may not mean and actual day as we think of them."
I need, perhaps, to see them as options-as you say--for students to try and reconcile the two disparate world-views. They are a foot in the door to a more rational way of seeing the world. I know smacking them in the head with "the stuff you think is wrong, your parents are wrong, your pastor is wrong," etc. does not work at all. The walls would go up immediately.
I need to see them as tools for students to pry open a way toward knowledge and not see them the way I do as an adult.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)with some of those statements. I don't think there does have to be a conflict and, if one is looking at it as allegorical, a day may mean something quite different.
The smacks on the head will only drive them further into their corner, I agree.
It's really interesting to hear from someone on the front lines of this critical dilemma.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't care because I can't knows. I don't care because it wouldn't change a thing about how I live my life.
I say, "I dunno" and am very satisfied with that. I thought there was one shred of hope that I could actually know one way or another, I might care.
NDT is saying exactly what he says and his intelligence has nothing to do with his position.
What interests me is the debate that goes on around believing and no believing and the way people interact because they believe or don't believe.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)It does affect how I would live my life, though. If I was a believer-I would have to take what the god wants into consideration when making each decision-instead of using my own brain and sense of right and wrong. I am pretty sure I would make worse decisions.
I would have to take god into consideration when casting votes. It might result in voting against what I now know is right.
I think you get the idea!
I do think my lack of belief lets me see things in a (slightly) more rational way than would be the case otherwise. This naturally leads to the arrogance of thinking I see things in a more rational way than believers. But I see that and can take THAT into consideration, too.
I do not need to "know" one way or the other. I simply follow the evidence and decide what appears to be more likely. Few with a scientific bent claim to "know" about this--just to assign levels of likelihood to things.
To me, the god question is very interesting and relevant to my profession(teaching science). I think I understand that your interest lies more in the human interaction component, which is, indeed, interesting.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Theist = believes a god exists
Atheists = does not believe a god exists (no convincing evidence)
One can't half believe a god exists.
As for "One can simply not really care either way.", well, that's like saying one doesn't care if a water tap is open or closed. Don't care either way? Your kitchen will be soaked.
phil89
(1,043 posts)hes an atheist. By definition. And you constantly tell people what they think and label them. Your dishonesty is getting to a new level of absurdity.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If there is a total quantity Q of things to be known, and as our knowledge K
a- grows at an increasing rate, and
b- accumulates
scientific ignorance (Q-K) is decreasing at a growing rate.
struggle4progress
(118,043 posts)Ancient Christian Writers, vol 41
Translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, SJ
New York: Paulist Press, 1982.
... Chapter 19. On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.
Let us suppose that, in explaining the words, And God said Let there be light and light was made, one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or super-celestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion ...
This book was written in the early fifth century.
okasha
(11,573 posts)with process theology. It also fits with Native American thought, which sees Creator in literally all of existence: there are no gaps.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, for your next trick, as the gaps in out lack of understanding shrink, is to hand the whole kit and caboodle to god, making everything everywhere part and parcel, as well as wholly owned property of, your invisible friend.
Joy.
phil89
(1,043 posts)dont we get all we need from religious myths?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Well, fundies and those atheists who think like fundies. This is similar to my own position which is that god created the singularity which then expanded into the first Big Bang (first because I also believe in the cyclical universe model) and thereafter, allowed natural processes to shape the results. 14 billion years would be nothing to a supreme being.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are a number of cyclical models that have been proposed, some more interesting than others given observable evidence, but I was wondering, which one do you subscribe to?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)The version I was thinking of is that the universe continues to expand until the momentum from the Big Bang runs out. Then gravity starts to slowly draw it together. Until eventually, the force of gravity condenses everything back down into a new singularity which then expands into a new Big Bang and a new universe.
As I said, I don't know the proper name and I might well have misunderstood some of the detail but that's what I think will eventually happen.
EDIT: Incidentally, if you know of anything on this subject you think I should read (university graduate level), then I welcome the chance to learn more.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)That's the conflict. It's not fundamentalist to point that out.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Right now, we don't know what preceded the singularity. According to some theories I've read, we may never know. So my presumption is, in this case, a stand-in until/unless we get the actual evidence. At which point, the presumption will be altered or dropped, depending on what the evidence is.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Your presumption is still in conflict with science.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)You seem to know how God experiences time.
Do you think he guided evolution to create humans, if so, doesn't that mean natural processes did not shape results.
Why so many restarts in evolution? Did he make mistakes?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Firstly, we know that our perception of time speeds up as we get older. That's proven and that's over a comparatively short human lifespan. How quickly, therefore, must a being as old as the universe experience time?
You seem to know how God experiences time.
Know? No. I don't speak to god, I worship the other guy.
Do you think he guided evolution to create humans
Define "guided". If you mean, did he tinker with evolution in process (presumably adjusting a genome here and there) to create humans, then I doubt it. Did he know what the outcomes would be before the process started? Possibly. I don't believe that god is all-knowing but, presuming he exists, he must know a great deal, possibly enough to reliably predict what course evolution would take in response to stimuli. I may not be explaining that well. What I mean is that, when one knows, fully and truly groks, all circumstances surrounding an event, that event becomes, to a great degree, predictable.
Why so many restarts in evolution? Did he make mistakes?
Dude, I worship the devil. Of course god makes mistakes.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)edhopper
(33,226 posts)It took 14 billion years. Did he send the asteroid to nearly wipe out life on Earth so we could evolve?
Did he make a mistake before that with the dinosaurs and decided to start over?
Did he cause the drought that brought our ancestors out of the trees onto the savannah where their hands became free?
How much did he guide?
"I believe in evolution but think God guided it". Is not answer, just the start of many questions.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)choice, if you do then it is your choice. Those who do not allow others the freedom to chose are the ones who are in the wrong.
louis-t
(23,199 posts)It wasn't hard, it wasn't confusing.
edhopper
(33,226 posts)louis-t
(23,199 posts)edhopper
(33,226 posts)or point to the logical problems with saying God is guiding evolution?
God wanted to do it this way, and that's enough. And since those events were crucial to the ascent of man, don't we have to accept that God was behind them?
louis-t
(23,199 posts)edhopper
(33,226 posts)you were never confused. If the question is troublesome, you don't think about it.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Is meant to make cognitive dissonance easy.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Brief excerpt from a densely mathematical article. I liked the logic bits, so picked one that didn't start with "algorithm".
pinto
Randomness and Mathematical Proof
Scientific American 232, No. 5 (May 1975
by Gregory J. Chaitin
Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured, a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a limit to what is possible in mathematics.
Unprovable Statements
Gödel showed in his 1931 proof that Hilbert's plan for a completely systematic mathematics cannot be fulfilled. He did this by constructing an assertion about the positive integers in the language of the formal system that is true but that cannot be proved in the system. The formal system, no matter how large or how carefully constructed it is, cannot encompass all true theorems and is therefore incomplete. Gödel's technique can be applied to virtually any formal system, and it therefore demands the surprising and, for many, discomforting conclusion that there can be no definitive answer to the question "What is a valid proof?''
Gödel's proof of the incompleteness theorem is based on the paradox of Epimenides the Cretan, who is said to have averred, "All Cretans are liars'' [see "Paradox,'' by W. V. Quine; Scientific American, April, 1962].
The paradox can be rephrased in more general terms as "This statement is false,'' an assertion that is true if and only if it is false and that is therefore neither true nor false. Gödel replaced the concept of truth with that of provability and thereby constructed the sentence "This statement is unprovable,'' an assertion that, in a specific formal system, is provable if and only if it is false. Thus either a falsehood is provable, which is forbidden, or a true statement is unprovable, and hence the formal system is incomplete.
Gödel then applied a technique that uniquely numbers all statements and proofs in the formal system and thereby converted the sentence "This statement is unprovable'' into an assertion about the properties of the positive integers. Because this transformation is possible, the incompleteness theorem applies with equal cogency to all formal systems in which it is possible to deal with the positive integers [see "Gödel's Proof,'' by Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman; Scientific American, June, 1956].
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/sciamer.html
Extra credit - Epimenides Paradox Consider this statement: "This statement is false.'' Is this statement true?
Joe Magarac
(297 posts)He is a despicable hypocrite, and no credit to science or his filthy evil religion.
pinto
(106,886 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Perhaps you could give some substantive criticism of his position rather than just personally attacking him?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)This forum is open to all opinions about religion and irreligion. It is not a safe haven for believers, even if our defenders of the faith pretend that you expressing your opinions about religious nonsense is somehow unacceptable here.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)That's intellectual dishonesty at its best.
You believe in the Bible. But then you find that some parts are at odds with known facts.
So, what do you do? You could admit that you were wrong and give it a fresh start... No, you really like the Bible. You rewrite the Word of God until it fits your desires. But it is totally still the Word of God.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)
looong years ago.
I hate auto correct.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)matter to the overall teachings.
okasha
(11,573 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)we have no idea of the mechanism. We equally have no idea of the mechanism of how God would have created the universe. Of course, the big bang theory came along, and religious people said "hmmmm"
I'm not claiming any connection, and I don't lie awake wondering about this stuff, but the ideas are intriguing.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)He remains a creationist.
"God created the world with the intention that we would be here and that we would one day be capable of interacting with him"
Note that is not just the universe was poofed up by this god thing, that it is that this tiny little planet we are on was created along with us stupid ass bald apes as the intentional act of a creator deity. He has to believe that idiocy 'cause his bible tells him so.
That nonsense is incompatible with science. It asserts that the ancient cosmology with the earth as the center of a creator god's attention remains valid. It is utter horseshit and specious nonsense.
Hardin tries to get out of his massive holy book problem with this mess:
Hardin recognizes, crucially, that when the two books dont seem to match, the error might be in his own understanding of the Bible. Rather than reject what science has discovered, he asks how Scripture can be understood better so that it fits the scientific evidence.
Note that apparently science, like the bible, is just "a book", but lets ignore the problem with that viewpoint.
So when clear idiocy is discovered in the holy book, rather than the obvious explanation: it is pathetic nonsense, Hardin goes into the standard dodge of inventing new gibberish to replace the existing gibberish and then claiming that the new sciency gibberish is the correct "understanding" of the obvious old gibberish in his ridiculous book of ancient nonsense.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)...but I doubt it.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The basic difference between religion and science is:
Scientific explanations contain the bare minimum and they are only valid until a contradiction is found.
Religious explanations contain lots of unnecessary additional content that makes the explanations unwieldy and overblown and prone to mistakes. But don't worry: Even if you find a contradiction to a religious explanation it's still totally valid.
So, Mr. Hardin.
Why is God part of your evolutionary theory?
There are currently experiments underway to track down the chemical processes that lead to the formation of biological life. If the experimental results contradict your evolutionary theory, will you discard your theory like a scientist is supposed to do or will you keep it like a believer is supposed to do?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)even Ussher and Newton were writing with all that they had: this is hardly "Christianity threatened by a longer timeline and Orwellianishly moving the goalposts"--theologians have dealt with everything everyone else has since Sargon
heck, the US didn't have a creationist lobby until the 1910s, and that was another culture-war thing where they just turned evolution into a bloody shirt to wave: that's the danger of culture wars
problem is the mainstream ain't mainstream no more in the US
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I'll be honest and say this is an example of compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance, I couldn't reconcile a world where evolution happens, galaxies exists, quadrillions of suns and worlds exist, and there's a god guiding/created it all, and he also sent his ONLY begotten son to be crucified to save one species on one planet.
I was taught to use my reason to interpret the Bible, that's what the Church taught me, and, through the Holy Spirit, I would know what is true in the Bible and what isn't. It lead me to doubt the truthfulness of the whole text, so either the Church is wrong about the Holy Spirit guiding me, my reasoning is faulty, or Bible isn't really that good a book to find truth in.