Is Belief in a creator God compatible with evolutionary Naturalism?

[brewdickle]

Umm... Jimmy Wales also describes himself as being Wikipedia's "Spiritual Leader" even though he is a self-professed atheist (ref.: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05...ia_pron_purge/). I wouldn't assume that his self-descriptions are accurate. Look at what he actually supports.

Being an Atheist simply means "without a belief in a God or Gods." You can be an Atheist and still be spiritual. They are not mutually exclusive.


And yes, I think we've beat this horse to a bloody pulp with both of us firm in our respective stance. Please, carry on with your regular scheduled program.


thanks Magazineman, I'm gonna need two of those groupons

[Bill Carson]

Adam and Eve. They evolved to be the first sentient beings, and were granted the Holy Spirit (a soul) by God.

This is how I choose to see it.

So you believe the bible story that there was an Adam and Eve but you don't believe the bible story on how they were created ?

[brewdickle]

Curious, do you believe that matter/mass, space, and the 'forces of nature' have always existed, or was there a time when neither space, matter/mass, nor the 'forces of nature' ever existed?

Great question, can something come from nothing? I have no idea. And I'm ok with not having the faintest clue.

If I had a gun pointed to my head and had to choose one... my limited brain would probably choose the former, that something had to come from something.

[MotoriousRacing]

So you believe the bible story that there was an Adam and Eve but you don't believe the bible story on how they were created ?

Something like that, but I admit I am still working out my beliefs. I believe Adam and Eve had belly buttons and were not alone in being the first sentient beings; the first with a soul. I believe the Bible is full of parables and analogies.

I cannot seem to believe in something from nothing, hence I believe in a divine 'cosmic egg' that started the universe and provided 'natural laws', including survival of the fittest and adaptation.

I believe the universe does, did, or will have other sentient beings also divinely created from 'natural laws'. Do we really even know what is circling our nearest star outside our solar system, let alone what lies at the center of, or the far reaches of just our Milky Way galaxy?

Are there any catholics here that believe in a young earth? Maybe when I get home from picking up my kid, I will start my first Poll.

[carlsbad]

I am a physicist. I exchange a lot of thoughts with physicists. Many, if not most, consider themselves athiests. They have a very logical, accurate mind. They interpret the Bible literally and discard it as inconsistent with science.

On the other hand, I know a lot of very intelligent Christians who believe in the Bible yet understand the science of geology and astrophysics and have resolved them both.

The Bible was written 1500 years before Copernicus proposed the sun as the center of the solar system. Galaxies were a concept unknown and the age of the universe wasn't even a question in the minds of thinkers--scientists didn't really exist either.

So if the Bible started out, "In the beginning, God caused a great mass of subatomic particles to come together in a Black Hole that eventually couldn't exist in equilibrium. In the violent events that followed, billions of stars coalesced. Gravitation forces heated the hydrogen atomes to a point where fusion chain reactions began creating Helium and Lithium and in the cores of these stars heavier elements were formed. Eventually these heavier elements came to gether to form planets and on one of these planets, called Earth, a beautiful garden grew called Eden. ..." I don't think it would have been received very well.

Those scientists who recognize the science that existed at the time of the bible and the context in which it was written are able to reconcile science and Christianity wihtout significant conflict.

--Jerry

[MotoriousRacing]

I am a physicist. I exchange a lot of thoughts with physicists. Many, if not most, consider themselves athiests. They have a very logical, accurate mind. They interpret the Bible literally and discard it as inconsistent with science.

On the other hand, I know a lot of very intelligent Christians who believe in the Bible yet understand the science of geology and astrophysics and have resolved them both.

The Bible was written 1500 years before Copernicus proposed the sun as the center of the solar system. Galaxies were a concept unknown and the age of the universe wasn't even a question in the minds of thinkers--scientists didn't really exist either.

So if the Bible started out, "In the beginning, God caused a great mass of subatomic particles to come together in a Black Hole that eventually couldn't exist in equilibrium. In the violent events that followed, billions of stars coalesced. Gravitation forces heated the hydrogen atomes to a point where fusion chain reactions began creating Helium and Lithium and in the cores of these stars heavier elements were formed. Eventually these heavier elements came to gether to form planets and on one of these planets, called Earth, a beautiful garden grew called Eden. ..." I don't think it would have been received very well.

Those scientists who recognize the science that existed at the time of the bible and the context in which it was written are able to reconcile science and Christianity wihtout significant conflict.

--Jerry

Nice post. I have also tried to tell the atheist naturalists the same thing, but not as detailed and eloquent.

These ideas of God being more abstract have been around for at least 800 years, with St. Thomas Aquis' Quinque Viae. He does not say man was made in God's image, he states that what may be perceived as God can include cosmological ideas as follows;

1. The Argument of the Unmoved Mover.
2. The Argument of the First Cause.
3. The Argument of Contingency.
4. The Argument from Degree.
5. The Teleological Argument.

These ideas of logic and reason that show how God can be perceived more abstractly, came 2-3 millennia AFTER Genesis was written, and in addition, mankind still did not know the Earth wasn't the center of the universe or wasn't flat when St. Thomas conceived these ideas.

Given that mankind still struggles today with the how and why of creation, why should it be expected that Moses, author of the Torah, would be capable of having any understanding of cosmology. Imagine just trying to explain modern agriculture to Moses. A pump, a tractor, electricity? Even just 130 years ago, mankind developed the horse-less carriage, likely called as such because of the long standing practice that a cart must be propelled by an animal.

[brewdickle]

On the other hand, I know a lot of very intelligent Christians who believe in the Bible yet understand the science of geology and astrophysics and have resolved them both.

So are you saying that they do not take a literal view of the Bible? If so, then you're opening another can of worms in which one can interpret the Bible in any way they want. I could ask 3 bible scholars to interpret a passage and I would get 4 different answers. And we see this today with over 10,000 denominations and sects of Christianity.

I just wonder why a truly all-knowing God could not have conveyed a simple message of how life began ("small living things gave way to larger living beings") that could be universally agreed upon. Instead we have someone's best guess at the time as to how life began based on their very little knowledge. If we still believe the account in Genesis today we are only being intellectually dishonest with ourselves.

[Bill Carson]

I am a physicist. I exchange a lot of thoughts with physicists. Many, if not most, consider themselves athiests. They have a very logical, accurate mind. They interpret the Bible literally and discard it as inconsistent with science.

On the other hand, I know a lot of very intelligent Christians who believe in the Bible yet understand the science of geology and astrophysics and have resolved them both.

The Bible was written 1500 years before Copernicus proposed the sun as the center of the solar system. Galaxies were a concept unknown and the age of the universe wasn't even a question in the minds of thinkers--scientists didn't really exist either.

So if the Bible started out, "In the beginning, God caused a great mass of subatomic particles to come together in a Black Hole that eventually couldn't exist in equilibrium. In the violent events that followed, billions of stars coalesced. Gravitation forces heated the hydrogen atomes to a point where fusion chain reactions began creating Helium and Lithium and in the cores of these stars heavier elements were formed. Eventually these heavier elements came to gether to form planets and on one of these planets, called Earth, a beautiful garden grew called Eden. ..." I don't think it would have been received very well.

Those scientists who recognize the science that existed at the time of the bible and the context in which it was written are able to reconcile science and Christianity wihtout significant conflict.

--Jerry

I always wonder where people get their dates on when the bible was written.

[Bill Carson]

So are you saying that they do not take a literal view of the Bible? If so, then you're opening another can of worms in which one can interpret the Bible in any way they want. I could ask 3 bible scholars to interpret a passage and I would get 4 different answers. And we see this today with over 10,000 denominations and sects of Christianity.

I just wonder why a truly all-knowing God could not have conveyed a simple message of how life began

("small living things gave way to larger living beings") that could be universally agreed upon. Instead we have someone's best guess at the time as to how life began based on their very little knowledge. If we still believe the account in Genesis today we are only being intellectually dishonest with ourselves.

He did.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NASB

[Hoshnasi]

What is the Naturism view on the creation of the universe? How did the planet earth come to be?

Further, I don't like the coupling of naturism and evolution, I've never heard of evolution needing naturalism to exist as a scientific theory.

[Bill Carson]

Right. Instead, God chose a talking snake since everyone knows those exist.

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

[Magazineman]

I'm confounded as to why he would do that.

[Bill Carson]

I'm confounded as to why he would do that.

Of course you are.

[brewdickle]

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

If I was a believer then I'd be inclined to say "you're taking it out of context."

But if you want to throw around arbitrary verses I'll play...

"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Hot poker in the eye anyone?

[Bill Carson]

If I was a believer then I'd be inclined to say "you're taking it out of context."

But if you want to throw around arbitrary verses I'll play...

"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Hot poker in the eye anyone?

Explain how I used that verse out of context.