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

[IWantGod]

The search for God is far more important than evolution.

Understanding God’s creation is not important to you. Fare enough.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Understanding God’s creation is not important to you. Fare enough.

We are all created by the same God, the same God hears all our prayers. We all have a duty to care for all of God’s creation, that has to mean caring for each other despite our differences. You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

Tomorrow night I will be out on the streets until around 4 am, with our Street Pastor team. we go out because we care about people, we listen and try to help. In the last month, I have stood in the middle of two drunken fights, with lots of blood. I have listened to two suicidal people tell their stories and I have helped homeless people in practical ways.

Trying to Understand God’s creation is important to me.

 

[rossum]

Animals do not have human cognition. If an animal kills a person, it is treated as an animal. If a human being kills a human being, there’s an infinite difference.

So, humans treat animals differently from the way they treat other humans. What does that have to do with the intrinsic properties of the animal? That is an external difference, and one that is intrinsic to humans, not intrinsic to the animals in question. If it is related to evolution, then it is related to human evolution, not to the evolution of the animal in question.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I have pointed out that a Geiger counter presupposes the existence of human insight, knowledge and perception.

You specifically asked for something produced by science. How can science produce human insight? The wording of your question excludes things like human insight. Either accept my answer or ask a better question.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Supposing it took around 1800 random mutations for the eye to evolve in incremental steps. This should then apply to every other body part. In theory some clever person should be able to map out maybe a couple of thousand incremental steps for the evolution of the skull. They should also be able to say how each random incremental step gave an advantage for natural selection to work on.

Then repeat for around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and a1000 tendons.

There is no way blind nature could put all this together without God. The search for God is far more important than evolution.

You do realise that your God is more complex than all those muscles, bones, ligaments and tendons put together? Any argument from complexity fails once you look at the complexity of the proposed designer.

You might also note that all those muscles etc. are also present in chimpanzees and so would have been present in our common ancestor.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Understanding God’s creation is not important to you. Fare enough.

You keep misrepresenting people and creating straw men with whom you argue and insult. Don’t do that!

Consider that modern science clearly has little to say about God’s creation, especially with regards to our origins. If it weren’t for the fact that it supports the atheistic view point, they too would admit to its very many, very significant deficiencies.

It isn’t, but if it were like many political systems, a matter of choosing between two opposing parties - a young earth vs modern evolution theory, I’d have to go with the literal reading of the Bible. That’s how inadequate is the theory that you so whole-heartedly are backing.

More importantly, the consequences of following these essentially fundamentalist positions are very different. We become what we do. Treating life as merely organic structure and physiology, introjects that vision onto ourselves. Further from the truth, we are more vulnerable to sin and more likely to utilize our knowledge to further selfish ends. Abortion is one of the more horrific examples of what happens as a result of this disconnect from reality. Living one’s life believing in the literal version of Genesis will do what? Likely lead to that eternal Light that dispels all these shadows.

But, there aren’t two positions. And, while Genesis gives us only the headlines, mainstream science these days says nothing of how God moulded the dust of the earth into the form of man. We can intuit it however, replacing its mistaken assumptions, for those which have been revealed.

You would fare better listening and trying to understand what people are saying rather than automatically attributing to them what is at war within yourself.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

You do realise that your God is more complex than all those muscles, bones, ligaments and tendons put together?

Of course.

Any argument from complexity fails once you look at the complexity of the proposed designer.

The creation of the universe is history, either God created the universe, or there is no god. You can’t change history, Whatever way you look at something with no beginning or something that came from nothing, it does not make sense in human terms.

You might also note that all those muscles etc. are also present in chimpanzees and so would have been present in our common ancestor.

Go back a couple of billion years to a time when there were no bones, muscles, tendons or ligaments. Then ask the same questions again.

Supposing it took around 1800 random mutations for the eye to evolve in incremental steps. This should then apply to every other body part. In theory some clever person should be able to map out maybe a couple of thousand incremental steps for the evolution of the skull. They should also be able to say how each random incremental step gave an advantage for natural selection to work on.

Then repeat for around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and a1000 tendons.

Any argument from complexity falls short if there is no designer. There is no way blind nature could put all this together without God. The search for God is far more important than evolution.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

but if it were like many political systems, a matter of choosing between two opposing parties - a young earth vs modern evolution theory, I’d have to go with the literal reading of the Bible. That’s how inadequate is the theory that you so whole-heartedly are backing.

I agree with you, that has been my position for many years.

 

[rossum]

either God created the universe, or there is no god.

A false dichotomy. Other options include that God exists but did not create the universe – that was through some other process. Maybe God created the universe and then disappeared, so there is a universe and no God. Perhaps God is a part of the universe and was caused at the same time as the universe by some unknown cause which may, or may not, still exist. There are more options than the two you propose.

Go back a couple of billion years to a time when there were no bones, muscles, tendons or ligaments. Then ask the same questions again.

We can see the development of all those things over time. We see it in the fossil record, in DNA and in some extant living species. Jellyfish and earthworms have muscles, but no bones. All those things do not have to develop together, but can develop separately. Evolution is a massively parallel process. In a single species, one sub-population may have a mutation for 1% better vision while a different sub-population may have a mutation for 1% better bones. Those two separate mutations can both spread through the whole population and merge, so their later descendants carry both mutations forward.

There is no way blind nature could put all this together without God.

Nature is not “blind” in this case; it is guided by natural selection. Any probability calculation that you make has to include the effects of natural selection. A failure to do that means that you are not modelling evolution. It makes the calculation more difficult to do, but it can be done. I know because I have done a simple version of the calculation myself. See The Evolution of Boojumase". The inclusion of natural selection into the calculation reduced the time to evolve a 100 amino acid protein from 6.35 x 10^130 years to 2,096,000 years. That is why you must include the effects of natural selection in your calculation. Omitting those effects gives an answer that is wrong by many orders of magnitude.

rossum

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Science just builds bigger bombs to kill the blind, the deaf and the fit and healthy.

The bible has around two thousand passages that refer to justice for the poor, refugees, the oppressed, widows and orphans. Tragically, we ignore the word of God, when we allow around twenty thousand children to die every day as a result of grinding poverty and preventable disease.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Of course.

The creation of the universe is history, either God created the universe, or there is no god. You can’t change history, Whatever way you look at something with no beginning or something that came from nothing, it does not make sense in human terms.

Go back a couple of billion years to a time when there were no bones, muscles, tendons or ligaments. Then ask the same questions again.

Supposing it took around 1800 random mutations for the eye to evolve in incremental steps. This should then apply to every other body part. In theory some clever person should be able to map out maybe a couple of thousand incremental steps for the evolution of the skull. They should also be able to say how each random incremental step gave an advantage for natural selection to work on.

Then repeat for around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and a1000 tendons.

Any argument from complexity falls short if there is no designer. There is no way blind nature could put all this together without God. The search for God is far more important than evolution.

Amen!

 

[Aloysium]

As I write this my fingers bounce along the keyboard, forming words that reflect ideas that seek expression. A view of who we are takes shape as concepts are presented, reconsidered and revised to make sense to myself and hopefully others.

Now, if I cut away from the picture, everything that is not physical, to make a point rather than for impossible accuracy, let’s say 90% of what is going on in this moment, I am left with my body behaving in accordance with brain activity, inseparable as matter, from the greater universe in which it participates. In doing so, I intellectually kill the person.

With regards to the question posed by this thread, I would say that there is basically nothing new in the theory of evolution that was not previously known. We have always been aware that we are formed of the earth, breathing, drinking and eating as we must to to grow and survive. We have lungs, bones and muscles, livers and brains as do animals. We grow in a womb, from a seed and suckle our young. The natural order could always be stripped of its supernatural foundations. If it hasn’t happened by this point, that we lose our connection to that which is beyond, it is very unlikely to happen.

 

[inocente]

So you say teaching evolution stifles religion. Yet the Catholic University of America’s School of Theology and Religious Studies is teaching evolution to seminarians. - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm

How come?
If the Church is teaching evolution, I don’t stand by Her. How about those Baptists?

Baptists don’t have a creed or catechism, our foundational principle is each person should follow her own conscience in matters of belief. If she ends up a Baptist, fine, if not then that’s also fine, it’s between her and God.

From what I can see, all Catholic universities and schools teach evolution, and don’t teach young earth/old earth/etc creationism. If that’s true then everyone with a Catholic education is taught evolution and is not taught young earth/old earth/etc creationism. Which implies that wherever young earth/old earth/etc creationists got their creationism, it wasn’t from a Catholic education.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Tell me, what has creationism ever done to help the blind or the deaf? I think nothing, your designer can’t fix the many faults in its poor design. Science can. If your supernatural can’t help the blind see where science can, your supernatural is irrelevant to the human condition.

Physical sight is nothing next to spiritual sight. The supernatural man Jesus intervened in the order of nature and made the blind to see by a miracle. Jesus also cures our spiritual blindness, which science is powerless to cure.

Apparently you don’t believe in miracles? You don’t believe God can design a miracle when and where he pleases?

If so, have you read the Gospels lately?

Have you ever read them?

 

[grannymh]

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?

Considering that the belief in the supernatural has existed since the ancient peoples transmitted their legends – I doubt that there is anything powerful enough to erase the message of those legends.

When one is wearing a thinking cap, one can spot that natural selection, survival of the fittest and the etc., is obviously grounded in the material world. Common sense should point out that the material world is not equal to the spiritual world

 

[Tarquin]

You do realise that your God is more complex than all those muscles, bones, ligaments and tendons put together? Any argument from complexity fails once you look at the complexity of the proposed designer.

This is an example of not understanding what “complex” and “simple” mean in theology. God is “simple.” Simply put, to be “complex” is to consist of parts, such as hand and foot, thought and emotion, matter and energy. To be, in church terms, “without body, parts, and passion,” is (part of what it is) to be simple. I think by “proposed designer” you mean God. If that is so, it would be interesting to hear what you believe is “complex” about the type of unconditioned (since there was nothing else to condition it), transcendent (since there was neither time nor space) ‘Being’ that could have created the universe.

I know that the person who responded to this agreed that (in their opinion) God is complex. I believe it would be impossible for God (Original Creator) to be complex. Just as there are many conflicting views of what evolution is (natural selection, random mutation, epigenetic self-development along with lateral gene transfer, pre-designed, and so on), there are conflicting views of what God is. The atheist view of God tends to be flat, dogmatic, and simplistic, more like the view of God that a child might have who had not been introduced to philosophy, physics, and logic.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Baptists don’t have a creed or catechism, our foundational principle is each person should follow her own conscience in matters of belief. If she ends up a Baptist, fine, if not then that’s also fine, it’s between her and God.

Yes, this is a heresy that was prevalent down through history. We can believe exactly as we please. You of course will not address Paul’s plea made several times in several epistles, and the plea of Jesus as well, for unity of Christians in their faith. There is absolutely no unity if everyone is allowed to believe exactly as he pleases and then uses “freedom of conscience” as a cover for doing so.

Protestantism has wounded Christianity to the core. No wonder mainline liberal Protestantism is a rapidly vanishing breed. People who are tired of making up their own “truth” are desperate for the truths they can really count on, the ones taught by the apostles and their successors.

Why even bother to go to church if you need nothing more than conscience as your guide?

Protestantism first threw out the Church. Now it is throwing out the Bible. Next it will throw out … conscience. What will liberals have left to throw out?

 

[Tarquin]

Look back at the question I was asked. Your point is irrelevant to that question, and hence also irrelevant to my answer. The original question included the words “produced by science” so in order to answer the question as asked, I was restricted to the products of science. As you point out, perception is outwith science, and so the question, by its wording, excluded perception. Your criticism here misses the point. If anything, it is a criticism of the question, not of my answer.

How is this relevant to me? Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist, and there are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours. You are only one God away from atheism. I am tens of thousands of gods away.

rossum

Everything I say is relevant!

Look back at the question you were asked. Your response is irrelevant to my post. The original question included the words “superior form of perception.” If you wish to examine that issue in an artificial vacuum, you’re free to do so. In fact, you have done so. But for me, no single perception exists alone. If I were to criticize the answer, which I have not done, I would object to the word “perception” in that context. What I did was criticize your attempt to offer a man-made machine that detects something as a superior form of perception, when (1) it is not perception; (2) it provides no advantage greater than the advantage(s) of something else with different “perception” (or detection). If a perception serves no purpose to the perceiving device, I don’t see how it can be superior to anything. A thing is not “superior” simply on the basis of its existence! It must have an application. Let’s say Superman and Batman are standing side by side. Is Superman’s strength superior to Batman’s? Well, he has greater strength, but is it “superior”? If Batman uses his strength to save someone, and Superman uses his strength to annihilate the world, greater equates to worse (inferior), and the “inferior” strength of Batman equates to “superior strength (in value, application). Materialists reduce everything to quantity, so for a materialist, Superman’s strength is superior, because he’s got more of it. Superman is superior to Batman because he’s got more physical stuff. Batman is inferior, even though his stuff serves a better, higher purpose. My eyes serve a better, higher purpose than octopus eyes.

If your intent was just to name something that could detect something that humans cannot naturally detect, fine, no problem. There is diversity. Different living things have different senses that fit their needs. I don’t argue with that. That’s neither superior nor inferior, it’s just “natural.” To say that one thing is “superior” because it has some sense, suited (or crucial) to its existence, that another being lacks because it is not suited (or crucial) to its existence, is foolish. A bloodhound was given as an example. A bloodhound can track, because that suits its nature. Humans don’t need that sensitive of a sense of smell. Humans can follow visual spore, build traps, transportation, and weapons. Bloodhounds don’t do that. Humans see much better than bloodhounds. Bloodhounds don’t need to see that well; what their eyes don’t tell them, their noses tell them.

You obviously do not know how many gods are in my scriptures , and you are wrong to intimate that Buddhists “gods” are equivalent to Catholic “Gods.” Although the words are the same, their natures and roles are glaringly different. You are the angriest Buddhist I’ve ever met.

“You are only one God away from atheism. I am tens of thousands of gods away.”
This illustrates a tremendous fallacy! It is a common atheist argument. Okay, okay, so now it’s a Buddhist argument, too. The atheist says, religion has progressed from many gods, to a few gods, to three gods, to One God. (Setting aside the fact that that assertion is false to begin with!) The atheist says, “I am just following that progress, I have no gods.” That is a false hierarchy, from many conditioned, relative, limited gods to zero finite, relative, limited gods. If there is only One God, unconditioned, absolute, “perfect” (in the thomastic theological sense); then, believing in many relative, conditional, temporary gods is no better than believing in * relative, conditional, temporary gods. They are of the same category, and that is a different category than an unconditionally existing God. In both cases, neither party believes in the true God. (If there were no true God, then of course, it might be possible to have many gods, but then, I think “no god” would still be an impossibility.)

If I have ten thousand jobs, I will be worked to death. If I have one job, I’ll do fine. If I have no job, I’ll starve to death. One is better than nothing and better than more than necessary. If I have ten thousand children, I would not be able to provide for them properly. If I had ten children, I would be able to provide for them. If I had one child, I would be able to provide better than I could care for the ten children. But if I had absolutely no children, my heart would be inconsolable. Nothing is not necessarily better than one, and one can be better than ten thousand. But enough of personal preferences. If there is one True God, it doesn’t matter whether you or I think we are making progress by believing in ten thousand “gods” or in no god, because in both cases, no matter what kind of reasoning we apply, nor how successfully and persuasively we apply it, we are wrong.

“The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.”
Very Nagarjuna. I have appreciated Mulamadhyamakakarika.*

 

[Tarquin]

all the inherent defects in the human eye and how it suffers in comparison (in most aspects) with the eyes of other creatures. If God did design it, then He did a woeful job.

Maybe God was busy doing more important things. Who knows? There’s more to life than any one single aspect of it. Maybe God had an angel design the eye. Or maybe He didn’t even think we would need eyes. So He “let nature take its course.” Our physical bodies are only temporary anyway, so their construction really isn’t as important as our eternal bodies, except that, for atheists, our physical bodies are all there is about us. So you should not accuse God of being a failure unless you know exactly what it was that He did. And I think you are not capable of understanding what God has done, or how He did it. So far, I have not been. He might have acted as a “general manager” and let his subordinates work out the details. When it comes to God’s decisions, methods, and purposes, I can only make “intelligent” guesses, but those are much better than randomly mutating guesses.

 

[rossum]

This is an example of not understanding what “complex” and “simple” mean in theology.

We are talking about bones and tendons. Those are biological, not theological. If we are talking about biological objects, then we use biological measures of complexity, not theological measures.

I think by “proposed designer” you mean God.

The ID movement disagrees. ID is an attempt to remove an explicit God form the origin of life. God cannot, by law, be taught in science lessons in US public schools. ID is a politically motivated attempt to dress God in a lab coat and rename Him “the Intelligent Designer”.

If that is so, it would be interesting to hear what you believe is “complex” about the type of unconditioned (since there was nothing else to condition it), transcendent (since there was neither time nor space) ‘Being’ that could have created the universe.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is large and very complex. God is omniscient and therefore knows everything, and more, that is in the Encyclopaedia. That gives us a measurable lower bound for the complexity of God.

rossum