Theistic Evolution?

[emotel]

True. In raising the dead, Jesus proved that evolution is not responsible for all of life on earth.

But what about the people he didn’t raise from the dead and all those fossils?

This refutes Darwinian theory.

How does it do that? By definition a “miracle” is a departure from the natural order of things. If everything is a miracle then, by definition there can be no miracles.

I don’t know how Catholics can give such unqualified support for evolution, myself.

Maybe the mountains of evidence, the robust coherence of the theory across all scientific disciplines and the magnificient explanatory power that it delivers might have something to do with that.

You risk bearing false witness if you dismiss all that so lightly.

Emotel.

 

[buffalo]

But what about the people he didn’t raise from the dead and all those fossils?

How does it do that? By definition a “miracle” is a departure from the natural order of things. If everything is a miracle then, by definition there can be no miracles.

Maybe the mountains of evidence, the robust coherence of the theory across all scientific disciplines and the magnificient explanatory power that it delivers might have something to do with that.

You risk bearing false witness if you dismiss all that so lightly.

Emotel.

Did God know what Adam and Eve would look like?

 

[emotel]

Did God know what Adam and Eve would look like?

Strange Question?

However, since God, Adam and Eve do not figure in my model of reality it is a hypothetical question for me that, relative to what I was taught during my Catholic education, would seem to have an obvious answer.

God is an attribute saturated concept that is believed to be infinite along all axes - the end result of “My God is better than your God” games played for centuries.

So God is believed to have always known everything about everyone and about everywhere.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

God is an attribute saturated concept that is believed to be infinite along all axes - the end result of “My God is better than your God” games played for centuries.

God, by one classical definition, is the greatest being that can be conceived.

By that definition, everyone has their own “god” of some kind. Even atheists. There is something that they consider the highest level of being. Usually, they posit themselves in that role. In practical terms, the highest level of authority and power on earth will have to be another human being, or perhaps an organization of human beings. There can be no higher being to appeal to.

The only being that is greater than the greatest being one can conceive, is the being that actually exists. That is greater than a being that can only be imagined.

 

[buffalo]

Strange Question?

However, since God, Adam and Eve do not figure in my model of reality it is a hypothetical question for me that, relative to what I was taught during my Catholic education, would seem to have an obvious answer.

God is an attribute saturated concept that is believed to be infinite along all axes - the end result of “My God is better than your God” games played for centuries.

So God is believed to have always known everything about everyone and about everywhere.

Emotel.

Theistic evolution states that God started evolution and let it run its course.

Did God know the outcome of the evolution of man or not?

 

[emotel]

Theistic evolution states that God started evolution and let it run its course.

Did God know the outcome of the evolution of man or not?

Same answer really. The belief is that God knows everything.

My position is that what I was taught about God is not compatible with what I have learned about evolution. Currently, my model is that evolution is real and God is not.

My interest in “Theistic Evolution” is that there could be a middle course here and both God and Evolution might be real without contradiction.

As yet, I don’t see a way around the many philosophical problems accociated with that but discussing it is very interesting.

Emote.

 

[buffalo]

My interest in “Theistic Evolution” is that there could be a middle course here and both God and Evolution might be real without contradiction.

Emote.

As far as the origins of man go - God could have created Adam and Eve in His image and likeness supernaturally and inserted them in the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.

 

[emotel]

As far as the origins of man go - God could have created Adam and Eve in His image and likeness supernaturally and inserted them in the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. An all powerful God can do anything he wants to do.

However, if that’s what happened then it does raise some profound philosophical problems. For example; Why would God create the world via a process that made it look as though creation by a God didn’t happen? Any why do so many religious people reject the mountains of evidence for evolution if they really do have access to divine revelation about reality?

Emotel.

 

[edwest2]

You have made that pronouncement before Ed.

My response remains the same.

Galileo taught us that we should not let Dogma blind us to the reality of objective and re-producible science.

1. Our immune system can and does “program itself”. If it didn’t vaccination would not work.
2. Not only can computers program themselves, I have one that can and I can watch it programming itself.

Emotel.

1. Our immune system was predesigned to work in this fashion. It was all built-in.
2. Your computer did not assemble itself from nothing. If it did not have the capability to interface with any discs, it would amount to a paper weight.

Peace,
Ed

 

[emotel]

1. Our immune system was predesigned to work in this fashion. It was all built-in.

Well yes, it **COULD ** have been designed to be able to re-program itself but was it? It also **COULD **have evolved to be able to do that.

1. Your computer did not assemble itself from nothing. If it did not have the capability to interface with any discs, it would amount to a paper weight.

True enough. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t re-program itself.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

God, by one classical definition, is the greatest being that can be conceived.

Bertrand Russell conceived of a teapot in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars. That doesn’t mean that there is such a teapot in reality.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

Bertrand Russell conceived of a teapot in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars. That doesn’t mean that there is such a teapot in reality.

God is the greatest being that can be conceived. That is not a proof that God exists but rather a definition of God.

 

[emotel]

God is the greatest being that can be conceived. That is not a proof that God exists but rather a definition of God.

Hmmm… not a very useful concept then if the human ability to conceive of great things is limited. As, of course, it is.

However, it is a possible explanation of where the “God” concept came from. Anyone who believes in a “Lesser God” who is not infinite along all axes is under pressure once he hears others talk of belief in a greater God.

This leads to attribute satuation along all axes and obsession with the rather mundane concept of infinity.

Belief that your team leader cannot ever be beaten is perhaps comforting if you can regard such a thing as credible. But when you realise that such belief is in the mind of a mere mortal and it doesn’t either cause or require the actual existance of the believed in entity then the credibility begins to fade.

When you look around and see how many incompatible versions of this have been are are being fervently believed, the conclusion that you are simply observing that people tend to believe what they want to be true is quite persuasive.

Emotel.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. An all powerful God can do anything he wants to do.

However, if that’s what happened then it does raise some profound philosophical problems. For example; Why would God create the world via a process that made it look as though creation by a God didn’t happen? Any why do so many religious people reject the mountains of evidence for evolution if they really do have access to divine revelation about reality?

Emotel.

That is such a bogus argument. Our ability and reasoning is what is limiting. For thousands of years our understanding was limited. Now in the last two hundred we see the tip of the iceberg and we conclude that because we cannot the rest of it and anyone who says it’s there must be wrong because God cannot deceive. Don’t use this argument.

 

[emotel]

That is such a bogus argument. Our ability and reasoning is what is limiting.

But… isn’t that what I said:

Emotel:

Hmmm… not a very useful concept then if the human ability to conceive of great things is limited. As, of course, it is.

For thousands of years our understanding was limited. Now in the last two hundred we see the tip of the iceberg

I agree.

[quotebuffalo;3988578]
and we conclude that because we cannot the rest of it and anyone who says it’s there must be wrong because God cannot deceive. Don’t use this argument.

I have re-read the posts carefully and I don’t see myself using that argument?

Emotel.

 

[Camron]

Hmmm… not a very useful concept then if the human ability to conceive of great things is limited. As, of course, it is.

I have to admit that I’m not sure where you’re gong with this too. Just because the human mind is limited does not mean that it cannot conceive of things greater than itself, especially if those things have been revealed from a source greater than itself.

However, it is a possible explanation of where the “God” concept came from. Anyone who believes in a “Lesser God” who is not infinite along all axes is under pressure once he hears others talk of belief in a greater God.

This leads to attribute satuation along all axes and obsession with the rather mundane concept of infinity.

And it’s also possible that the various concepts of deity originally started from one primal revelation which degraded into various polytheisms too.

What significance, now, does this insight have for the understanding of the creation account? The first thing to be said is this: Israel always believed in the Creator God, and this faith it shared with all the great civilizations of the ancient world. For, even in the moments when monotheism was eclipsed, all the great civilizations always knew of the Creator of heaven and earth. There is a surprising commonality here even between civilizations that could never have been in touch with one another. In this commonality we can get a good grasp of the profound and never altogether lost contact that human beings had with God’s truth. In Israel itself the creation theme went through several different stages. It was never completely absent, but it was not always equally important.

There were times when Israel was so preoccupied with the sufferings or the hopes of its own history, so fastened upon the here and now, that there was hardly any use in its looking back at creation; indeed, it hardly could. The moment when creation became a dominant theme occurred during the Babylonian Exile. It was then that the account that we have just heard – based, to be sure, on very ancient traditions – assumed its present form. Israel had lost its land and its temple. According to the mentality of the time this was something incomprehensible, for it meant that the God of Israel was vanquished – a God whose people, whose land, and whose worshipers could be snatched away from him. A God who could not defend his worshipers and his worship was seen to be, at the time, a weak God. Indeed, he was no God at all; he had abandoned his divinity. And so, being driven out of their own land and being erased from the map was for Israel a terrible trial: Has our God been vanquished, and is our faith void?

Belief that your team leader cannot ever be beaten is perhaps comforting if you can regard such a thing as credible. But when you realise that such belief is in the mind of a mere mortal and it doesn’t either cause or require the actual existance of the believed in entity then the credibility begins to fade.

Perhaps a better explanation for the origins of polytheism can be explained qs a degeneration from original monotheism just as Rom. 1:19 declares. That is, paganism is a falling away from the primitive monotheism. This is evident in the fact that most pre-literate religions have a latent monotheism in their view of the Sky God or High God.

William F. Albright likewise acknowledges that the “high gods may be all-powerful and they may be credited with creation of the world; they are generally cosmic deities who often, perhaps usually, reside in heaven.” As the evengelical Norman L. Geisler notes, this clearly runs counter to the animistic and polytheistic conceptions of deity, something which Pope Benedict XIV agrees with.

When you look around and see how many incompatible versions of this have been are are being fervently believed, the conclusion that you are simply observing that people tend to believe what they want to be true is quite persuasive.
Emotel.

It is a reasonable conclusion, but only if one is not aware of the traces of a primitive monotheism throughout world history. There are many arguments in favor of primitive monotheism. Many come from the records and traditions we have of early civilization. These include Genesis, Job, the Ebla Tablets, and the study of preliterate tribes. You can find more information here if you’re interested…

Similarities in Primitive Beliefs in an All-Powerful God

 

[emotel]

I have to admit that I’m not sure where you’re gong with this too. Just because the human mind is limited does not mean that it cannot conceive of things greater than itself, especially if those things have been revealed from a source greater than itself.

Of course the human mind can conceive of things greater than itself but the greatness of what it can conceive is clearly limited. If a greater source reveals great things then the human mind could do bettter but there would still be a limit to the ability of the mind to comprehend what was being revealed.

My point was that if, as was stated, “God” was was ***defined ***to be the greatest thing that the human mind could conceive of then that God would be limited by the capabilities of the human mind.

And it’s also possible that the various concepts of deity originally started from one primal revelation which degraded into various polytheisms too.

That isn’t what history seems to be telling us.

The Ancient Egyptians worshiped many Gods and Godesses:

ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/main.html

and the Hindus still do:

sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses.htm

The egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten (1352-1336 BCE) attempted to impose near - monotheism with Aten as the number 1 God and himself as number 2.

egyptologyonline.com/akhenaten1.htm

The Muslims proclaim the principle of “One true God” and they see the mysterious trinity of Christianity as a violation of that principle.

Perhaps a better explanation for the origins of polytheism can be explained qs a degeneration from original monotheism just as Rom. 1:19 declares. That is, paganism is a falling away from the primitive monotheism. This is evident in the fact that most pre-literate religions have a latent monotheism in their view of the Sky God or High God.

The ancient Egyptians worshiped the sun-gods Ra, Aten and the reason for this seems obvious. Without any kind of model of how the solar system functioned, the sun would have been the most mysterious object known to the ancient philosophers. Like the pagans, they knew that the sun brought many good things, heat, light and the giving of life to the plants they needed for food.

It is a reasonable conclusion, but only if one is not aware of the traces of a primitive monotheism throughout world history. There are many arguments in favor of primitive monotheism. Many come from the records and traditions we have of early civilization. These include Genesis, Job, the Ebla Tablets, and the study of preliterate tribes. You can find more information here if you’re interested…

But Moses was given commandments by God and the very first one is:

“I am the Lord thy God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!”

Doesn’t that signify that the worship of many different Gods was common practice?

Similarities in Primitive Beliefs in an All-Powerful God

That list fits well with the concept of “attribute saturation” that I mentioned earlier. Given that the prominence and significance of the sun was a common factor as was the need for some explanation of existence and the need to feel protected and loved by an entity with the power over what we now know to be natural forces, some convergent evolution in the concepts of God is perhaps to be expected.

Emotel

 

[reggieM]

Just because the human mind is limited does not mean that it cannot conceive of things greater than itself, especially if those things have been revealed from a source greater than itself.

That’s a good point. The “definition” of God is merely a means of being able to refer to God in some way with human language. It does not mean that God is “defined” (circumscribed, captured, comprehended) entirely by this human concept.

But to say that God is the greatest being that can be conceived provides a nice paradox (which is necessary when referring to God).

Emotel rightly says that if God can be conceived by the human mind then God is limited. But this definition overcomes that. Because a “greater God” would be a God who is not limited by the constraints of the human mind.

So, the definition provides the solution (in the paradox). The greatest being that can be conceived is a being that is greater than what can be conceived by the limits of human mind.

So the definition provides a reference point.

This concept of God is also shared among different beliefs. We have records of people who say that they have had experiences in communicating with God through revelations.

Several persons in a diverse range of cultures have pointed to belief in God and have expressed similar characteristics and “features” of God. Many others have witnessed or experienced miracles that they said come from God.

 

[reggieM]

the need for some explanation of existence and the need to feel protected and loved by an entity with the power over what we now know to be natural forces, some convergent evolution in the concepts of God is perhaps to be expected.

You’re pointing out a couple of things that caused the need for the proposition of God but which (in your belief) science has now answered.

But the most important factor that is tied to religion and to the belief in God goes beyond a need for an explanation for existence and the need to be protected and loved.

It’s simply the question of death – or if there is life after death actually.

This is something that science has not answered. Atheism provides no answer for it either. It leaves the question unresolved – actually it leaves the question unexplored. Atheism walks away from this question that has concerned humanity from the very beginning. What kind of solution has atheistic-science reached that will answer the question of the afterlife?

Without life after death, there is no hope. Nihilism is the philosophy of despair. There can be no fulfillment of human desires, no justice, no completion of the project of human growth and life.

Every human society of the past encountered the problem of the shortness of life versus hope in the human heart and mind – and thus religion has always been a means to the afterlife.

 

[emotel]

So, the definition provides the solution (in the paradox). The greatest being that can be conceived is a being that is greater than what can be conceived by the limits of human mind.

My mathematical mind rebels at the notion that you present a solution there.

It seems like a straight contradiction to me because any being conceived by the human mind is, by definition constrained by the limits of that mind.

Many people have a similar problem with the concept of infinity.

If you define infinity as a number that is sufficiently large to ensure that you don’t have to worry that it might be larger still then the problem goes away. That works for all mathematical Physics models of reality.

If you say that you define infinity as the largest number that you can imagine then you have a problem because I can say that your number plus 1 is larger still so my infinity is better than yours.

Several persons in a diverse range of cultures have pointed to belief in God and have expressed similar characteristics and “features” of God. Many others have witnessed or experienced miracles that they said come from God.

Because such reports are notoriously incompatible, that is surely evidence that humans have a tendency to believe things that are not true in the external world.

What kind of solution has atheistic-science reached that will answer the question of the afterlife?

Evolution provides tremendous explanatory power regarding origins and systems biology explains a great deal about how the end result functions. We can now look into the brains of both normal and abnormal brains and substantiate these models. We see no evidence of life after death because life requires the life of a brain. Something in us clearly lives on in a different sense but our consciousness does not.

Without life after death, there is no hope. Nihilism is the philosophy of despair. There can be no fulfillment of human desires, no justice, no completion of the project of human growth and life.

Careful now You bear false witness there. I am not without hope, I am not in despair, many of my desires and aspirations have been fulfilled, I see justice all around. I am very happy and content.

During my Catholic years I was quite disturbed by the after life. This was because the penalty for getting the entry conditions wrong was said to be so severe and the rules were so vague.

What could be worse that an eternity in hell? What if the Protestants were right or the Muslims or the Hindus? What if I was backing the wrong religious horse? How could I be happy forever in paradise knowing that many of my earthly friends and family were burning in the other place?

Then I came to realise that I didn’t control what I believed and that it would be a sin to pretend that I did. That made me happy and content again and I could get on with the task of making something of my life. A task that I have enjoyed enormously.

If I find myself standing before God my conscience is clear. I don’t control what I believe because I am honest and honesty is a virtue. The evidence control my model of reality and God created that evidence.

Every human society of the past encountered the problem of the shortness of life versus hope in the human heart and mind – and thus religion has always been a means to the afterlife.

No. In the pre-scientific age, religion has always been the source of ***belief ***that it is a means to the afterlife. That’s not the same thing at all.

There are “n” mutually incompatible religions and, because truth cannot contradict truth, we can be confident that at least (n-1) of them ***must ***be wrong.

I take one small and honest step beyond that and suppose that all n are wrong and that the scientific model of reality is where high intellectual integrity resides because it is so well substantiated by the evidence.

Emotel.