Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
They might change their mind when they understand the key point in evolution is random change in genes.
Click to expand...
đź‘Ť
Fortuitous events are supposed to have enabled purposeless particles to develop into persons capable of reasoning and self-control!
 
No. In the end, when people realize that a first cause is required, reason will reveal what is seen is purposeful, not fortuitous.

Ed
 
STT said:
The evolution is the result of random events. A random event is not intelligent. Therefore there is no intervention.
Click to expand...
Well they are not completely random. It is not an arbitrary fact that i have a brain. Its is not a random fact that when atoms are arranged in a particular way they produce different effects. You can’t reduce these facts only to randomness or chance alone…
 
IWantGod said:
Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a minority worldview?
Click to expand...
I think that as people realize it takes more faith to believe in God-less evolution, religious belief will increase.
 
OneSheep said:
What is your opinion on this IWG?

It’s a great question, but to me it depends on the definition of “supernatural”. For example, it is quite natural to hate ones’ enemies. Forgiveness of enemies is supernatural. It is natural to strive for wealth and status, so taking a step back from these in favor of holiness is supernatural.

A particle suddenly appearing in a perfect vacuum can be called “supernatural”, but it seems to be a naturally occurring phenomenon. That “natural”, however, does not take away from the wonder and awe of the world and all its miracles.

Would you agree that the foundation of faith lies not in scientific proofs and explanations, but comes from spiritual gratitude for life, and a hope for the future?
Click to expand...
I think faith certainly exists on the foundation of hope and a promise, but also i think we experience the world in a very personal and meaningful way which suggests more than just an indifferent Universe. Listening to music is a spiritual experience and doesn’t seem indifferent at all since it speaks to us personally.
 
IWantGod said:
Well they are not completely random. It is not an arbitrary fact that i have a brain. Its is not a random fact that when atoms are arranged in a particular way they produce different effects. You can’t reduce these facts only to randomness or chance alone.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about the brain. You developed into a complicated being from a
simple egg and sperm. Your genetic code causes you the way you are. Evolution is the result of random event in genes.
 
To support that hypothesis, you would have to explain why to your mind, supernaturalism would impede generational propagation, which is all natural selection cares about.

There’s no real evidence for that. Asian and Oriental cultures (except Japan) including Islam, which are the most supernaturalist, are also more highly prolific. Conversely, in the Western orbit and Japan, the increasing reach of hedo-secularism has led to demographic autumn.

I’d say the pattern will be the reverse of your hypothesis; that supernaturalism will increase in the world over the 2000s and 2100s, but in an Islamic or Oriental direction, rather than a Judaeo-Christian one.

ICXC NIKA
 
IWantGod said:
Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a minority worldview?
Click to expand...
How many atheists do you know that have more than 2 or 3 kids? They are barely at replacement rate, if they are there at all.
 
Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc,
Click to expand...
It assumes that these ideas will survive into the future. Survival of the fittest has already been falsified and is a tautology.
Natural selection is not a mechanism that actively selects. It is entirely dependent on the presence of certain random mutations and there is not enough time and not enough mutations to enact the kinds of changes claimed by evolutionary theory (if there is such a theory at all). From the first living cells to all of the diversity of plant, fish, bird, animal and eventually human life on the entire planet earth - all from random mutations?
All of the scientific and technological power in the world has not even been able to demonstrate the supposed evolution of eukaryotes from single celled organisms.
 
reggieM said:
It assumes that these ideas will survive into the future. Survival of the fittest has already been falsified and is a tautology.
Natural selection is not a mechanism that actively selects. It is entirely dependent on the presence of certain random mutations and there is not enough time and not enough mutations to enact the kinds of changes claimed by evolutionary theory (if there is such a theory at all). From the first living cells to all of the diversity of plant, fish, bird, animal and eventually human life on the entire planet earth - all from random mutations?
All of the scientific and technological power in the world has not even been able to demonstrate the supposed evolution of eukaryotes from single celled organisms.
Click to expand...
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
Exiled_Child said:
So as the Christian population shrinks and the Muslim population grows, the answer to your question is plain to see.
Click to expand...
Muslim society either rejects evolution outright (that doesn’t seem to have affected their growth at all) or they’re comfortable with the idea that Allah makes it appear as if evolution occurs naturally, but it’s actually Allah doing everything.
So, Islam will not be affected by the OP’s problem. They will continue to grow.

Christianity, however, will continue to be damaged as long as believers continue to embrace neo-Darwinism. And that’s what we’re seeing today in the US as the number of believers declines and atheism is on the rise.
 
reggieM said:
Christianity, however, will continue to be damaged as long as believers continue to embrace neo-Darwinism. And that’s what we’re seeing today in the US as the number of believers declines and atheism is on the rise.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think the rise of atheism, and the power it wields, is partly due to Christians who promote the idea that the theory of evolution is inconsistent with the faith?
 
IWantGod said:
Don’t you think the rise of atheism, and the power it wields, is partly due to Christians who promote the idea that the theory of evolution is inconsistent with the faith?
Click to expand...
Partly, yes. This need not be and Christians that make that claim are building their own hill to die on, imo.

Genesis didn’t cover the “how”, just the “who”. The assumption that divine fingers were snapped and it instantly appeared is just that - an assumption. The alternative is no less miraculous.
 
reggieM said:
Can we see how that would be a problem?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by intervention. If you mean God should be like a human inventor who puts parts together to create a machine, then no i don’t see why i must accept that view and i don’t see the problem of a God who doesn’t intervene in the natural development of physical objects..
 
IWantGod said:
It depends on what you mean by intervention. If you mean God should be like a human inventor who puts parts together to create a machine, then no i don’t see why i must accept that view and i don’t see the problem of a God who doesn’t intervene in the natural development of physical objects..
Click to expand...
Ok, I believe you’re saying that you disagree with the article and that God does intervene in nature, just not like a human inventor who is putting parts together to create a machine - right?
Or are you saying that “God does not intervene in nature”, just as the quoted article stated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top