Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution the Work of Satan?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 31 of 104 (589392)
11-02-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stephen Push
11-02-2010 2:18 AM


I checked Webster's as well and you are right about omnipotent and almighty. It isn't how I have thought of the terms.
My intial reaction with "process theism" is that I agree with some of it but not all of it. I believe that free will means that we can be influenced by God but not directly controlled. I do however believe in miracles, including of course the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
I guess that we can use the term omnipotence, but from a human perspective I'm not sure it has a great deal of meaning. As soon as we talk about infinite power it ceases to be something that we can comprehend. Are we talking about infinite knowledge of our physical world as we perceive it, or are we talking about infinite knowledge of both the physical and the metaphysical assuming that the metaphysical does actually exist.
As I have said before from a scientific point of view we have evolved physically and from a scriptural point of view our relationship with God has evolved. I conclude from this, that creation must have had limits imposed on it for some reason that would be well beyond our understanding. Today we live in a world, that involves both joy and sorrow, but I believe in happy endings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stephen Push, posted 11-02-2010 2:18 AM Stephen Push has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Otto Tellick, posted 11-13-2010 3:00 PM GDR has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 104 (589413)
11-02-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stephen Push
11-01-2010 10:50 PM


Re: A Matter of Standards...
Anyone's standards.
Commonly , for example, 'benevolent' is defined as always doing the right, or good, thing when the situation arises to do so (more in line with the 'omnibenevolence' Coyote mentioned). This, of course, flies against the notion of 'omnipotence', which is the power to do anything and everything. Obviously, any entity that is forced to do good whenever the opportunity arises is far from being 'omnipotent', being subjugated, as it were, to their own 'benevolence'. So, 'benevolence' and 'omnipotence' are clearly out of the question as sensible terms to describe any actual thing that may existincluding gods. 'Omniscience' simply increases such incidents of conflict between these properties as often defined.
So, folk have defined these words in such an exclusive way, and then tacked them on to descriptions of GOD and say: 'HA! You're goddy don't make no sense'. It's just very disingenuous, and not at all a productive discussion technique. The biggest wonder is why the hell so many religious folk let them get away with it... me thinks they haven't figured it out yet.
Your standards, if you like. In your opinion, what standards of benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence are consistent with a God who allows his sentient creatures to suffer from the natural evil entailed by the evolutionary process?
Given the way these things are defined, there is simply no way such an entity could exist, and even if such an entity did exist, it would be so damn screwed up that it'd hardly be worth calling GOD and worshippingI believe. As to how we could define them to accurately describe GOD, I cannot even begin to guess, but it is certainly not in the way they are commonly defined.
Being less familiar with non-Christian faiths, I don't know whether Jews and Muslims attribute all three of those qualities to God. But if they do, I would be interested in hearing their views on the subject, too.
What about people who do not belong to faith groups?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stephen Push, posted 11-01-2010 10:50 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2010 11:33 AM Jon has replied
 Message 38 by Stephen Push, posted 11-02-2010 9:36 PM Jon has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 33 of 104 (589417)
11-02-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stephen Push
11-01-2010 5:47 AM


No, of course evolution is not the work of Satan. Evolution is a natural consequence of the way that life works.
If anything were to be recognized as the work of Satan, then that would be "creation science", which deceives its victims into believing that if the world is as it actually is and life works as it naturally does, then God does not exist. Which is why, as Percy has just put it so succinctly in another thread (Message 10), creationists must work so hard to protect themselves from knowledge.
As for how the real world is supposed to mesh with one's theology, that is up to each individual to consider and to attempt to harmonize. However, be aware that there is no one single Christian theology, but rather many theologies based on various collections of aspects of Christian doctrine. Furthermore, each individual, even fundamentalists, creates his own theology, which is the theology that must be harmonized. One thing is certain, though: harmonizing by denying how the real world actually works is self-defeating and leads to self-delusion.
So perhaps a better question would be to ask of a Christian who accepts evoluton what his beliefs are and how he had harmonized them with reality -- points of doctrine that you personally find important may not be important to others, or they might have a different view about those points. Or you might take points that are important to yourself (which I believe you have already been doing) and ask how they could be harmonized.
Edited by dwise1, : added link to Percy's message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stephen Push, posted 11-01-2010 5:47 AM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Stephen Push, posted 11-02-2010 10:48 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 34 of 104 (589418)
11-02-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jon
11-02-2010 11:04 AM


Re: A Matter of Standards...
Obviously, any entity that is forced to do good whenever the opportunity arises is far from being 'omnipotent', being subjugated, as it were, to their own 'benevolence'.
But benevolence means (literally) the wish to do what is good, not a compulsion to do so.
Obviously the fact that God does what he wishes to do would not be a limitation on his omnipotence as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 11-02-2010 11:04 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Jon, posted 11-02-2010 1:53 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 104 (589428)
11-02-2010 1:07 PM


Evil and bad are not synonymous
Evil requires intent. Bad things happening, deaths, even tragedy and exterminations that are part of natural life are not evil.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stephen Push, posted 11-02-2010 10:54 PM jar has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 104 (589436)
11-02-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
11-02-2010 11:33 AM


Re: A Matter of Standards...
Jon writes:
Obviously, any entity that is forced to do good whenever the opportunity arises is far from being 'omnipotent', being subjugated, as it were, to their own 'benevolence'.
But benevolence means (literally) the wish to do what is good, not a compulsion to do so.
Obviously the fact that God does what he wishes to do would not be a limitation on his omnipotence as such.
My argument isn't against the use of the word as you describe it, but against the use of the word as I describe it. And I am not interested in debating the 'correctness' of either of these uses. I would, however, be interested in discussing how often the word's actual use is in line with one of these descriptions or the other.
My argument isn't against those who use the word as you've described, but against those who use the word as I've described. And I am not interested in debating who is more 'correct' in their use of the word. I would, however, be interested in discussing whether those using the word in any one of these ways are of the majority.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2010 11:33 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 37 of 104 (589439)
11-02-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stephen Push
11-01-2010 5:47 AM


Pie in the sky
Stephan Push writes:
Do Christian believers in evolution see Satan playing a large role in the evolutionary process? Or is the natural evil of evolution, contrary to Ayala’s view, a reason to reject the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God?
Perhaps natural suffering/evil is part of nature, hence the word "natural"
One theology idea is that God's omnipotence and benevolence is such that he can allow for such things to happen. It is beyond the mortal mind to see into the mind of God. I know a cop out.
I think the better question would be what would be the point of a omnipotent, omniscient God to create a universe in the first place.
If God is perfect and complete in his perfection what need for our imperfect universe? Unless it is in fact perfect, and our human perception can only see one microscopic sliver of the whole. The natural laws of the universe seem to correspond to a sublime homeostasis that on every level seems perfect. If the Christian God is omnipotent it would in fact know every particle that exist in every possible configuration. Who is to say things are not as they should be? Just a thought
Edited by 1.61803, : added word evil, met to put it in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stephen Push, posted 11-01-2010 5:47 AM Stephen Push has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 38 of 104 (589495)
11-02-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jon
11-02-2010 11:04 AM


Re: A Matter of Standards...
Jon wrote:
What about people who do not belong to faith groups?
This discussion is open to anyone who cares to participate.
Whatever someone's faith, it is incumbent on the believer who wants to describe his or her God to use a coherent description. If they want to say, "Our God is beyond all words," nothing more needs to be said. But if they say, "Our God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent," they must explain what those terms mean if they want to be taken seriously.
Of the various theist responses to the problem of evil, the ones that seem most ingenuous involve weakening the claim of God's omnipotence and/or omniscience. Some of the posts to this thread, as well as the "process theism" quote I provided in a previous post, suggest that many modern theists have weakened the omnipotence claim implicitly, if not explicitly.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 11-02-2010 11:04 AM Jon has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 39 of 104 (589498)
11-02-2010 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by dwise1
11-02-2010 11:19 AM


dwise1 wrote:
So perhaps a better question would be to ask of a Christian who accepts evoluton what his beliefs are and how he had harmonized them with reality -- points of doctrine that you personally find important may not be important to others, or they might have a different view about those points.
I think that question is on-topic, and I would be interested to hear how Christians or other religious people who accept evolution answer it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dwise1, posted 11-02-2010 11:19 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 40 of 104 (589500)
11-02-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
11-02-2010 1:07 PM


Re: Evil and bad are not synonymous
If we were speaking of the ordinary meaning of those terms, I would agree with you. But I was using a term from Christian theology, "natural evil," which refers to suffering caused by natural phenomena. I suppose they called such suffering "evil" because they believed it was caused by Satan and his cohorts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 1:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 10:58 PM Stephen Push has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 104 (589501)
11-02-2010 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Stephen Push
11-02-2010 10:54 PM


Re: Evil and bad are not synonymous
Which Christians?
As a Christian I don't see Satan as evil, rather Satan is the tester, an angel that does the will of God.
As a Christian I see no such thing as "natural evil".
So which Christians?
Think.
How can some natural event have intent?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Stephen Push, posted 11-02-2010 10:54 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Stephen Push, posted 11-03-2010 1:43 AM jar has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 42 of 104 (589508)
11-03-2010 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
11-02-2010 10:58 PM


Re: Evil and bad are not synonymous
Which Christians?
Ayala is, I believe, a Roman Catholic. At least he was when he was a Dominican priest. Collins is an evangelical Christian.
As a Christian I see no such thing as "natural evil".
Call it what you will. Suffering is a fact of life.
How can some natural event have intent?
See my previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 10:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 11-03-2010 10:36 AM Stephen Push has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 104 (589548)
11-03-2010 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stephen Push
11-03-2010 1:43 AM


Re: Evil and bad are not synonymous
Again, I see no evidence that suffering has anything to do with evil except when the suffering is intentionally caused by some other human.
Evil is a human construct.
Yes, suffering as well as joy, pain as well as pleasure. night as well as day, sunshine as well as rain; but what do any of those have to do with either evolution or Satan?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stephen Push, posted 11-03-2010 1:43 AM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Stephen Push, posted 11-03-2010 12:37 PM jar has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


(1)
Message 44 of 104 (589577)
11-03-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
11-03-2010 10:36 AM


Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
I’m sorry if my earlier posts didn’t make my reasoning clear. I’ll try again.
The idea for this thread came from a post made by Shadow 71 in another thread. Shadow 71 accepts evolution and believes in the Roman Catholic God. That’s not surprising, because the Catholic Church also accepts evolution and does not take the Biblical story of creation literally. (In fact, it was a Catholic priest who first suggested the big bang theory.)
I am aware that the Roman Catholic God is believed to be the omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent Creator of the universe. I suspect that view of God is also held by many non-Catholic Christians, and perhaps by some non-Christians as well.
I also doubt that many believers in evolution would deny that the evolutionary process involves a lot of suffering. If you find that statement controversial, let me know, and I’ll present my evidence for that conclusion.
When I review the above information, what springs immediately to mind is a version of the age-old problem of evil. Please don’t get hung up on the word evil. The suffering caused by evolution is of the kind that some theologians would call natural evil. That term actually refers to unintentional sources of suffering, such as floods, earthquakes, and disease. The term is distinguished from moral evil, which includes suffering caused by the intentional acts of people.
The problem of evil is a deductive argument. If the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. The argument goes like this:
Premise: God is omnipotent.
Premise: God is omniscient.
Premise: God is benevolent.
Premise: Evil exists in God’s creation.
Conclusion: The concept of God is logically inconsistent.
Over the centuries theologians have suggested various solutions to this problem. A famous one is that evil is necessary if people are to have free will. Thus it is in our interests to have free will in a world plagued by evil than to be automatons in a world without evil.
That might arguably be a solution to the problem of moral evil, but I don’t think it adequately addresses the problem of suffering caused by nature. One way the suffering caused by nature has been addressed in the past is to blame it on Satan’s free will. According to this line of argument, if we accept that free will is desirable, we have no grounds for denying it to angels -- fallen or otherwise.
My discussion of the "Satan solution" was tongue-in-cheek, because I doubt that many Christians liberal-minded enough to accept evolution would blame natural disasters on the devil. But if I'm wrong about that, please correct me.
I doubt that I have presented an exhaustive list of the proposed solutions to the problem of evil, but I had hoped that this was enough of an exposition to get the discussion started. If anyone knows of other possible solutions, I’d be interested in hearing them.
Based on the information presented above, I conclude that, if we accept evolution and the existence of the suffering it entails, an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator is logically impossible. I don’t see any logical solution to this problem that leaves all three of those characteristics intact.
But if, for instance, someone accepts evolution and proposes a powerful, wise, and benevolent Creator, that would be a logically possible God. And in fact, it appears at least some believers today implicitly or explicitly assume limits on Gods power and/or knowledge to preserve His benevolence, which apparently they feel is the most important of the three qualities.
I hope that’s a clearer explanation of my views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 11-03-2010 10:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 11-03-2010 12:47 PM Stephen Push has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 104 (589580)
11-03-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Stephen Push
11-03-2010 12:37 PM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
And of course, you are free to believe anything you wish.
My point is that the word Evil carries a connotation of intent that is different than simply bad or suffering or unfortunate.
I can see no evidence of "evil" or "natural evil" in evolution.
AbE:
Perhaps this post will address some of your questions.
Edited by jar, : add link to old message

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Stephen Push, posted 11-03-2010 12:37 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Stephen Push, posted 11-03-2010 12:56 PM jar has replied
 Message 49 by Stephen Push, posted 11-03-2010 1:31 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024