|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4976 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of an atheist. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Bikerman writes: Directed evolution supposes that we are the endpoint (or if it doesn't then it is useless to the theist who proposes it). This is simply not the case - as can easily be demonstrated by examining genetic evidence Directed evolution does not necessarily suppose that we are at the end point. Certainly we still see natural selection happening all the time, so life is still evolving.Christianity even teaches that at the end of time we will evolve, whether it be by an evolutionary process or something else, into a re-embodied existence, with God's heavenly dimension and our earthly dimension coming together in a re-created universe. quote: Bikerman writes: Directed evolution presupposes a master geneticist. Why would such a designer build obsolete, redundant and positively harmful code into the DNA molecule? Why build inelegant and flawed solutions when it is possible to do better? Those very flaws are a result of the unguided nature of evolution. This alone defeats the notion. The normal counter is that these deficiencies may be inherent in the solution (ie using DNA at all). That is a nonsense argument for two reasons - firstly we can already improve on the 'design' ourselves in some cases and secondly any sufficiently advanced designer would not select a flawed basis for his creation unless he were a fool, or incapable of better. Either way the crown begins to slip past the ears. This isn't the end product.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4976 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:Where does it mention evolution to a new state? Where does it mention development? It seems to me that the meaning is clear - he will us what it was all about at the endtime. That's it. The whole Christian message focusses on the resurrection of the physical as well as the spirit. It has nothing to say about evolving into a new physical state to my knowledge. Indeed we are created in the image of God and I fail to see how God can evolve - it would imply a rather less than optimum starting point and I think it would probably be considered blasphemous in most Christian sects to suggest that God is subject to natural selection - for a start who would he mate with? The idea of evolving Gods is interesting from the point of view that it tells us much about religion. We do indeed see an evolution of Divitinities over history. The first Gods were almost certainly natural phenomena - the Sun, the stars, a particular rock formation etc.As societies become more complex then the basic questions also become more complex and we see the previous emphasis on iconic objects shift towards the Shamen-type religious leader who has something to say about individual human problems, rather than generalisations about weather, war etc. From this point religion becomes focussed on mankind so we get increasing sophistication of the Shamanic theme, until we eventually arrive at the ultimate anthropocentric God - Jesus - who actually IS human. None of this has anything to do with the case in point, however, that evolution is certainly NOT part of Christian dogma in any physical sense. Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Bikerman writes: Where does it mention evolution to a new state? Where does it mention development?It seems to me that the meaning is clear - he will us what it was all about at the endtime. That's it. The whole Christian message focusses on the resurrection of the physical as well as the spirit. It has nothing to say about evolving into a new physical state to my knowledge. Indeed we are created in the image of God and I fail to see how God can evolve - it would imply a rather less than optimum starting point and I think it would probably be considered blasphemous in most Christian sects to suggest that God is subject to natural selection - for a start who would he mate with? I should have taken more time with my post but I was in a rush to get to church. The point about natutal selection was just to point out that evolution is still happening today. It wasn't meant to tie into what happens at the end of time. I certainly don't see God evolving, but I do see His relationship with us evolving. I agree with your summation that Christianity is, amongst other things, about the resurrection of body and spirit. I do not have any idea of how that will come about and only a very basic idea of what it will be like. I don't know if it will be a event that happens in a moment or if it is something that will happen over time, (which if it is over time would I suppose look like something of an evolutionary process.) My point is that what we are living today is not the end of the process that started with creation and evolved from there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: Francis Collins is on the record already as believing that some notions are simply beyond the capacity of science to address, even if it looks like science has addressed them. He's got a lot invested in being the nation's most prominent Christian scientist (not, like, a Christian Scientist) so he's got a lot to lose by accepting what the science pretty clearly says (as, obviously, do you.) I hear that type of argument a lot. You discredit what someone has to say by discrediting their argument by questioning their objectiveness. Collins did convert from atheism.
crashfrog writes: Couldn't Carl Sagan have simply been trying to avoid the public controversy that would surely embroil him if he ever posited a contradiction between science and theism? I mean, Carl Sagan at the time was one of the most prominent scientific unbelievers. The "New Atheism" movement had not yet begun and it was not yet accepted for someone to be an out and out atheist. People were always scrutinizing his statements and work for anti-religion notions with which to attack him. Same point I made about Collins.
crashfrog writes: Anyway, you never answered my question. Is there any scientific evidence I could show you that would diminish your faith in your god? If my theology is 100% correct, and my science was 100% correct then they would obviously have to be compatible. However, science can and has impacted my theology. Like all of us, it is a search for truth and I'll take it where ever I can get it. I see science, as I've said before as a natural theology and I have no doubt that God has given us inquisitive minds for a reason. Science is about telling me what God has done. Theology is about why He has done what He's done and what we are to do about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Rrhain writes: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? We've gone all around that one before and you don't feel that any answer I give is sufficient. If you have a point to make just go ahead and make it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
GDR writes: Like all of us, it is a search for truth and I'll take it where ever I can get it. What specific reason/s do you have to think that religion provides you truth? Considering you obviously consider the vast majority of religions ever as being completely wrong, including the vast majority of existent religions, I wonder why you consider religion a conduit for truth. If the vast majority of science today was completely wrong would you question the field and method's ability to reveal truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Beyond, "I think therefore I am" we can't be sure of anything. It is a search for truth but there is very little or nothing that we can be absoultely sure of. Christianity, and the world view it represents rings true for me and the longer that I try to live within that world view, and experience it, the more it rings true for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4976 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:You have a basic idea? Do tell, because as far as I can see there is no way to imagine (or perform) a physical resurrection of a body that may, by now, be rendered almost down to base elements, let alone the personality/memories which we know originate in the brain and we also know do not survive death. I cannot conceive of any way in which it could be done, so I would be fascinated to hear any hypothesis, no matter how bizarre... It cannot be anything like an evolutionary process since evolution is unguided and does not converge on a particular point/species. In any case that would, at best, be a copy and there is nothing special about producing a copy from dead material - we call it cloning.The point is that in a few decades I will be a collection of elements and compounds with no trace of brain or DNA, so to reconstruct 'me' is quite out of the question scientifically. It is also questionable philosophically whether any such reconstruction would be 'me' in any real sense. This is, of course, what comes of trying to put sense onto a nonsense concept. Resurrection is an old religious idea - Achilles and Memnon immediately spring to mind, as do the Egyptians to whom the Christian version probably owes the most - particularly the myth of Horus, as the following comparison from religioustolerance.com shows:
Jesus' and Horus' life events, etc. Edited by Bikerman, : sp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
GDR writes: Beyond, "I think therefore I am" we can't be sure of anything. It is a search for truth but there is very little or nothing that we can be absoultely sure of. Christianity, and the world view it represents rings true for me and the longer that I try to live within that world view, and experience it, the more it rings true for me. Oh, I was thinking you were speaking in the context of objective reality, not whatever felt good in your subjective world view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Bikerman writes: Resurrection is an old religious idea - Achilles and Memnon immediately spring to mind, as do the Egyptians to whom the Christian version probably owes the most - particularly the myth of Horus, as the following comparison from religioustolerance.com shows:
I don’t know what you are using for a reference but I have the book Don’t Know Much About Mythology by Kenneth C Davis, which is a totally secular book. According to Davis the story is that Osiris was brought back to life long enough to make love to Isis so that she became pregnant with Horus.The resurrection stories of that era were actually based on Osirus not Horus. Of course the stories were always stories of gods and not of someone who was human, so there really isn’t much of a parallel anyway. According to the mythology Horus spent his existence at war with his Uncle Seth. Trying to draw too many parallels here is a stretch. The Jews, (not all of them) of course believed in resurrection but only at the end of time. The idea that a messiah would be resurrected in time before everyone else was not on their radar.
Bikerman writes: You have a basic idea? Do tell, because as far as I can see there is no way to imagine (or perform) a physical resurrection of a body that may, by now, be rendered almost down to base elements, let alone the personality/memories which we know originate in the brain and we also know do not survive death. You have a lot of "knows" in there that are your beliefs. The only model we have for a resurrected body is Jesus. If you take the gospels as factual as I do, then the resurrected Jesus was something that the disciples didn't expect and something that was different from normal human experience. About the only other thing we can know about new creation is that there is an end to suffering and Jesus is Lord.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Phage0070 writes: Oh, I was thinking you were speaking in the context of objective reality, not whatever felt good in your subjective world view.
There is no such thing as objective reality. All our views are subjective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
GDR writes: There is no such thing as objective reality. Q.E.D. , I rest my case. Man, I am on a ROLL tonight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Phage0070 writes: Q.E.D. , I rest my case. Man, I am on a ROLL tonight.
Clever. Here I thought we were having a discussion while you think that you're scoring points in some kind of debate. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
GDR writes: Clever. Here I thought we were having a discussion while you think that you're scoring points in some kind of debate. We are having a discussion, I simply established where you are coming from. Providing the correct context to a discussion can be very insightful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
GDR writes: There is no such thing as objective reality. Phage0070 writes:
You should perhaps consider the possibility that perhaps GDR does not mean what you took him to mean there.
Q.E.D. , I rest my case.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024