Theistic Evolution

[ironduck]

Hey, don't diss The Three Little Pigs, it's one of my favourite stories and I once wrote a paper on it

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And even if the story of the three little pigs never really happened historically, there is still plenty to be learned from it, about preparing for the future, and depending on which version (and thus the ultimate fate of the first two pigs) on either facing the consequences of your actions or helping out others.

 

[Sidhe]

I learn it's better to be a wolf than a pig, but I have a history of skewing fairy tales with their trite messgaes. For example I think Little Red Riding Hood was a triumph for the wolf who got a good meal and frankly that bit about him being killed by a woodsman is propaganda.

As Erin says you don't have to believe it's true to get a positive message from any book, that's self evident IMO.

 

[Shadylookin]

This seems the sort of thing a literal-Bible-believing Christian would say! - I.e., that things are only worthwhile if they are written by God?

Assuming you're an atheist, then presumably you don't think that all written material is equivalent to "3 little pigs"?

I don't know why some Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, without believing the Bible to be written by God, but I don't see it as any more strange - in both cases, I see people believing in things without evidence.

no fictional stories vary in quality, but they are still fictional.

As Erin says you don't have to believe it's true to get a positive message from any book, that's self evident IMO.

oh course not, but this isn't about someone getting possitive messages. it's about believing stories are true without evidence

 

[smalltalk]

I would say that since the vast majority of Christians actually have no problems with the ToE, in effect the answer is yes, you can be a Christian and accept the ToE.

That's either because people do not think hard enough about Christianity or about ToE or both.

The core believe of christianity is that people have an eternal soul.

So let me ask: are there any ideas, how a soul could have gradually evolved?

What's the evolutionary cause why humans developed a soul? Even if there is one, this would still grant Homo Habilis and Australopithecus Suchandsuch sort of a proto-soul.

Instead of answering this question, when it comes to the soul, theology resorts - as usual - to magic. As soon as Homo Sapiens appears, god decides to equip the fellers with a soul.

Standing back to the wall, the Pope is forced to redefine evolution as a supranatural thing:

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here?in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

- So first we learn that there is not one but many theories of evolution. Who would have ever heard of that?

- Then we learn, the final judgment about which one is true lies in the realm of theology.

*cough*

It's an act of semantic fraud and scientific decievery.

... Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul. "Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." - Pope John Paul II.

 

[MrCynical]

That's either because people do not think hard enough about Christianity or about ToE or both.

The core believe of christianity is that people have an eternal soul.

So let me ask: are there any ideas, how a soul could have gradually evolved?

What's the evolutionary cause why humans developed a soul? Even if there is one, this would still grant Homo Habilis and Australopithecus Suchandsuch sort of a proto-soul.

The only problem here is the persistent desire of humans to feel that we are the most important thing in the universe. That everything revolves around us. That we are superior to all other species and so can treat them as we please.

There is no logical reason, assuming for the sake of argument that an eternal soul actually exists, that it should only be present in humans. Why should everything from the single celled organism up not have an eternal soul? Only our desire to feel superior and special, which is particularly pervasive in Christianity.

- So first we learn that there is not one but many theories of evolution. Who would have ever heard of that?

- Then we learn, the final judgment about which one is true lies in the realm of theology.

*cough*

It's an act of semantic fraud and scientific decievery.

True there are multiple theories as to the precise mechanism of evolution, but judgement of which of these is true is a job for scientific observation, most certainly not theology. The fact people have generated theories based on spiritualism with pre determined ideas not based on science is of no relevance, and does not make theology of relevance either. I can make a theory that if someone follows a deeply spiritual path of self enlightenment they'll spontaneously evolve into a pancake, but it's of no relevance to the theory(s) of evolution based on scientific observation, and does not detract from them.

Discussion of the soul is of no relevance at all to creating a theory based on scientific observation, since there is no evidence that the soul actually exists. Similarly as I've said, there is no reason beyond human self centeredness to assume that only humans have souls, so the evolution of the soul does not present any real problem even if it does exist.

And finally, the Pope's opinion is that of one human, who knows relatively little of science, and has a narrow view of religion. I see no reason to put particular weight on his opinion.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think any scientist would reject a ToE that includes a description for the evolution of a human soul.

But your connundrum is not just with the ToE, it's with the creation of life.

Somewhere between the meiosis of my gametes into sperm and the crowing of the baby during child birth, most Christians believe that the organism is developed enough to receive a 'soul'. And they'll argue long and hard about when that is. Is kicking my nuts killing millions of organisms that have a soul? Does a late-term abortion kill an organism with a soul? There seems to be a point between those two where the answer is 'yes'.

So, if a living cell can be developed enough to not have a soul at one stage, but a soul at another; then it's not unreasonable to believe that a species does not have a soul at one stage, but does at another.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

smalltalk, first of all the word "magic" has almost no real meaning. It basically means "part of any religious belief I disagree with". Second of all, if a soul exists, what's so hard to believe about the concept of God imparting it to bodies that evolved naturally? And anyways, who said that Christianity requires that only humans have a soul? Ours may be the most advanced, but that doesn't mean other organisms don't have one. I hear people complaining that Christianity puts humans on an undeserved pedestal - I also hear people complaining that Christianity unnecessarily denigrates humans. I could level bith charges against atheism if I wanted.

 

[ironduck]

If souls are immortal they are not destroyed when the host organism dies

 

[brennan]

I hear people complaining that Christianity puts humans on an undeserved pedestal - I also hear people complaining that Christianity unnecessarily denigrates humans. I could level bith charges against atheism if I wanted.

How on earth does Atheism put humans on a pedestal?

Level your charges and prepare to be debunked.

 

[ironduck]

Kinda hard to charge 'the lack of belief in god' with anything. Would you charge 'the lack of belief in pan-cake-head-bunny' with such things?

One more time, atheism is not an ideology or belief system.

 

[MrCynical]

I hear people complaining that Christianity puts humans on an undeserved pedestal - I also hear people complaining that Christianity unnecessarily denigrates humans.

I think the reason you hear this is because Christianity, in a slightly self contradictory nature, does both of these in different parts of the Bible. God's attention is given purely to humans rather than other animals (actually a very specific group of humans in the middle-east), and there is of course the concept that humans were made in God's own image. Humans are invariably presented as the only things of importance on Earth, and everything else, living or otherwise, is merely there to serve them.

On the other hand there is the idea that humans are are inherently sinners from the very moment of conception, due to actions of their ancestors. This is of course an insult both to humans and to morality itself, since it violates the basic principles that an indivdual is responsible for their own intentions and actions alone. It is nonsensical to blame or praise someone for actions not committed by them.

I could level bith charges against atheism if I wanted.

You could certainly label the denigration charge, since atheism rgeards humans as a mere quirk of the universe, of virtually no importance. As to putting humans on a pedastal I'm less sure there's a case. You could argue that the absence of God and his entourage leaves humans as top beings in the universe to an atheist, but that would only be a manifestation of the same human arrogance that places humanity of such importance in religion.

 

[ironduck]

You could certainly label the denigration charge, since atheism rgeards humans as a mere quirk of the universe, of virtually no importance. As to putting humans on a pedastal I'm less sure there's a case. You could argue that the absence of God and his entourage leaves humans as top beings in the universe to an atheist, but that would only be a manifestation of the same human arrogance that places humanity of such importance in religion.

I think you're making the same mistake of applying a belief system to atheism. Not believing in a deity has nothing to do with the importance or lack of importance of humans or any other animal.

 

[brennan]

Atheism gives no more nor less important to humanity than anything else.

 

[MrCynical]

That was kind of my point about human arrogance. In both religion and atheism humans have a natural tendency to regard themselves as the most important things on Earth, so I don't think that is an inherent effect of a belief system. It's just some belief systems attempt to justfy that arrogance (though not all of them and not always consistently in those that do).

 

[Stile]

On the other hand there is the idea that humans are are inherently sinners from the very moment of conception, due to actions of their ancestors. This is of course an insult both to humans and to morality itself, since it violates the basic principles that an indivdual is responsible for their own intentions and actions alone. It is nonsensical to blame or praise someone for actions not committed by them.

That humans are inherently sinners due to the actions of Adam and Eve is not to condemn a person for something they didn't do, but to show why we do what we do. In the eyes of God we are all sinners by nature and in need of redemption. It's not an insult to humans, because it's mostly descriptive in nature. Calling a pig foul smelling is not an insult to pigs, but is merely descriptive relative to my olfactory.

I am heartened that you get your basic principles from a reputable Source.

 

[classical_hero]

Atheism gives no more nor less important to humanity than anything else.

This is the crux of the issue. Basically the Bible says that we were created for a purpose and such we are a special creation of God and as such he has done things for us. Whereas evolution says that we are basically animals and that we are nothing special. I know what I would rather believe.

Basically what you just said is false humility. One will be truely humble when they can compare themselves to God and see themselves in hi light. Then can one truely become humbel because we can never measure up to his standard.

 

[Dionysius]

That humans are inherently sinners due to the actions of Adam and Eve is not to condemn a person for something they didn't do, but to show why we do what we do. In the eyes of God we are all sinners by nature and in need of redemption. It's not an insult to humans, because it's mostly descriptive in nature. Calling a pig foul smelling is not an insult to pigs, but is merely descriptive relative to my olfactory.

I am heartened that you get your basic principles from a reputable Source.

about inherant sin; do religious people consider this to be around still, or absolved by jesus?

 

[ironduck]

This is the crux of the issue. Basically the Bible says that we were created for a purpose and such we are a special creation of God and as such he has done things for us. Whereas evolution says that we are basically animals and that we are nothing special. I know what I would rather believe.

So you believe it because it makes you comfortable?

I asked you earlier why you think the bible is the word of god.

 

[Stile]

about inherant sin; do religious people consider this to be around still, or absolved by jesus?

Religious people near to me believe the sin is still there, but it doesn't preclude a relationship with God.