If the Creation myth is wrong then what is left to believe in?

--amadeus--

I'm just coming to the end of Dawkins (brilliant) book on evolution. It's a very easy to read and diverting book and it a great primer in the facts of evolution.

One of the chapters that I found most interesting covers the many engineering "errors" inside our bodies - nerves that pass within inches of where they will terminate only to go down one side of your neck and back up again (a detour of several feet for a giraffe), Vas Deferens that loop up and over your ureter and back down again and even your retina which is back to front.

Now I know that there are those who claim "Intelligent Design" and from the outside you can see the attraction of teh theory but from teh inside, the anatomy, it is blindingly obvious that modern animals were certainly not "designed" in any understood meaning of teh term.

And evolution is such an established fact now that many major churches - including teh catholic church AFAIK - accept it.

So if evolution has replaced god in teh creation myth then what is left? If god didn't create the world and all that's in it why worship him? Or is he even there?

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

One of the chapters that I found most interesting covers the many engineering "errors" inside our bodies - nerves that pass within inches of where they will terminate only to go down one side of your neck and back up again (a detour of several feet for a giraffe), Vas Deferens that loop up and over your ureter and back down again and even your retina which is back to front.

When man designs and creates life, it can start to criticize the 'errors'.

Now I know that there are those who claim "Intelligent Design" and from the outside you can see the attraction of teh theory but from teh inside, the anatomy, it is blindingly obvious that modern animals were certainly not "designed" in any understood meaning of teh term.

Simply rhetoric. Maybe stringently believed rhetoric, but rhetoric nonetheless.

And evolution is such an established fact now that many major churches - including teh catholic church AFAIK - accept it.

Its only fact if a fact is defined ambiguously. Its a fact that my hand exists. That certainty, whatever the sophistry, is not present in the many facets of the theory of evolution.

So if evolution has replaced god in teh creation myth then what is left? If god didn't create the world and all that's in it why worship him? Or is he even there?

God is there alright, he just hasn't brought you from the darkness..........yet.

Fanny Cradock

The idea that the Genesis creation was to be understood as an accurate history was challenged by early church fathers such as Origen (2nd-3rd centuries) and Augustine of Hippo (4th and 5th centuries). In more recent times, denominations like the RCC have come to accept evolution in some fashion. Even if you don't accept that evolution is compatible with Genesis, it seems that Christians - at least some of us - are of the opinion that there is much to believe in. This is probably the most sucint answer I have to the question you posed in the thread title. Forgive the bluntness of the question. But does this response really come as news to you?

On another note, if you want to hear a little of the exegesis of Genesis that suggests that it wasn't intended to be understood as a historical account (this much at least Origen and Augustine would likely have agreed with) you may want to check out this lecture by Earnest Lucas.

If you want to know a little more about the rise of YEC (from the Scopes Trial onwards) then Ronald Numbers discusses it here and here. (The first talk is about the conflict thesis between science and religion - but creationism gets a mention. The second talk addresses the popularity of creationism in the US.)

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

When man designs and creates life, it can start to criticize the 'errors'.

Actually that's a fairly common process with genetic engineering. For example over a decade ago scientists genetically manipulated goats to produce spider silk in thier milk (link). And back in teh 1950s experiments showed abiogenisis. So designing & creating life isn't such a big deal

JimiTime wrote: »

Simply rhetoric. Maybe stringently believed rhetoric, but rhetoric nonetheless.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean here

JimiTime wrote: »

Its only fact if a fact is defined ambiguously. Its a fact that my hand exists. That certainty, whatever the sophistry, is not present in the many facets of the theory of evolution.

I assume you mean unambiguously defined? And evolution has been experimentally proven time and again - every antibiotic you take from teh doctor is designed based on evolution! Experiments with e coli and guppy's have all shown evolution in clear and measurable manners. And that's before you go near DNA and molecular biology evidence. Evolution is a fact.

JimiTime wrote: »

God is there alright, he just hasn't brought you from the darkness..........yet.

Well if he is he must have made me athiest so I would never dare go against his will

FC - what I am interested in is how educated and thinking christians can square the circle of accepting that one of the major planks of thier belief system from it's founding (the creation myth) can be proven wrong, can be accepted to be wrong and yet this has no impact on thier belief. Does it not make you wonder - if he didn't really create the world then what else is wrong in teh bible?

Zombrex

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm just coming to the end of Dawkins (brilliant) book on evolution. It's a very easy to read and diverting book and it a great primer in the facts of evolution.

One of the chapters that I found most interesting covers the many engineering "errors" inside our bodies - nerves that pass within inches of where they will terminate only to go down one side of your neck and back up again (a detour of several feet for a giraffe), Vas Deferens that loop up and over your ureter and back down again and even your retina which is back to front.

Now I know that there are those who claim "Intelligent Design" and from the outside you can see the attraction of teh theory but from teh inside, the anatomy, it is blindingly obvious that modern animals were certainly not "designed" in any understood meaning of teh term.

And evolution is such an established fact now that many major churches - including teh catholic church AFAIK - accept it.

So if evolution has replaced god in teh creation myth then what is left? If god didn't create the world and all that's in it why worship him? Or is he even there?

This question might be more suitable on the A&A forum, given that you seem to be saying that evolution is a path to rejecting God even exists.

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Actually that's a fairly common process with genetic engineering. For example over a decade ago scientists genetically manipulated goats to produce spider silk in thier milk (link). And back in teh 1950s experiments showed abiogenisis. So designing & creating life isn't such a big deal

You've more faith than most religious people, its also as misplaced as most religious people.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean here

In English we use words like truth and fact etc, and they mean what they are supposed to mean according to the English language. In step Evolution and these words don't actually mean what they mean in English. Nothing is 'proven' or 'fact', just the best explaination we got etc. So, in terms of English, its neither proven nor a fact, though people love to say it, it simply isn't true (As in how truth is defined in the English language)

I assume you mean unambiguously defined? And evolution has been experimentally proven time and again

No, the word 'fact' and 'proven' mean something different when it comes to Evolution allegedly. So in terms of English, Evolution is neither proven nor a fact.

- every antibiotic you take from teh doctor is designed based on evolution!

That old chestnut. Adaptation yes, Evolution no.

Experiments with e coli and guppy's have all shown evolution in clear and measurable manners. And that's before you go near DNA and molecular biology evidence. Evolution is a fact.

Nope, it aint. Its only a consensus of 'its the best model we have'. As I mentioned, the word fact is clearly defined, and evolutionists like to use its power, but like to skew its meaning.

Well if he is he must have made me athiest so I would never dare go against his will

Indeed, he will be the one who decides who he brings into the light.

--amadeus--

Wicknight wrote: »

This question might be more suitable on the A&A forum, given that you seem to be saying that evolution is a path to rejecting God even exists.

Yeah I was going to put it there but I figured it wouldn't get much commentary, just agreement. Reading the book I just couldn't see how you could accept both evolution and religion. The two just seem so mutually incompatible. Yet plenty of religious people seem to do just that and I wondered how.

JT - evolution debating is done to death and that's not really what I was interested with this thread. All I have to say on teh matter is that as far as I am concerned evolution has been scientifically proven (by this as much as anything else) and no amount of attempted fancy footwork on "but what do you mean by theory, what do you mean by fact" can bypass the data, there for anyone to read in black and white in peer reviewed, respectable academic journals.

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

All I have to say on teh matter is that as far as I am concerned evolution has been scientifically proven (by this as much as anything else) and no amount of attempted fancy footwork on "but what do you mean by theory, what do you mean by fact" can bypass the data, there for anyone to read in black and white in peer reviewed, respectable academic journals.

The 'fancy footwork' as you put it, is conducted on the evolution side when they take words that have clear definitions, like the word fact, and redefine and use them. As I said, used for their power, but redefined.

The Journals are indeed there, and its great to have 'em as they show up the misuse of words like 'fact' and also silly, and at this stage cliché, sayings like antibiotics are a byproduct of the theory of EVOLUTION.

Anyway, there is still no worthy explanation on the origin of life, so evolution is still silent on the matter, and according to some, does not deal with the question (It rather deals with the diversity of life).

Whether one is a creationist or a theistic evolutionist, there is no challenge in your OP for Gods sovereignty.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

In English we use words like truth and fact etc, and they mean what they are supposed to mean according to the English language. In step Evolution and these words don't actually mean what they mean in English. Nothing is 'proven' or 'fact', just the best explaination we got etc. So, in terms of English, its neither proven nor a fact, though people love to say it, it simply isn't true (As in how truth is defined in the English language)
...
No, the word 'fact' and 'proven' mean something different when it comes to Evolution allegedly. So in terms of English, Evolution is neither proven nor a fact.

They mean something different when it comes to science, an area of study that requires carefully defined terms in order to facilitate precise communication between scientists.

This can lead to confusion when non-scientists read scientific judgements and interpret them using lay-man terms, which leads to such comments as "Evolution is only a theory"

JimiTime wrote: »

That old chestnut. Adaptation yes, Evolution no.

Adaptation is the observed phenomena, Darwinian evolution is the theory explaining how it happens. Bacteria develop resistance in line with how the theory predicts they would, through mutation and natural selection. If Darwinian evolution was incorrect this would be observable (ie the bacteria would adapt through some other process, such as Larmackian evolution)

JimiTime wrote: »

As I mentioned, the word fact is clearly defined, and evolutionists like to use its power, but like to skew its meaning.

All scientists do this, not just evolutionary biologists. In science a "fact" is considered an objective observation (something just fell for the wall), that make up the body of an observed phenomena, where as a theory is the explanation for these facts. You can have different theories trying to explain the same facts, and as the facts increase you will be able to see which theories explain them better (for example Darwinian evolution explains the observed facts far better than Lamarckian evolution, particularly after the discovery of genes and genetics)

I would imagine though amadeus though was using the term in the lay mans (or common English) usage rather than the scientific usage, to simply mean an idea that is so well supported it can be considered very accurate, similar to electromagnetism or general relativity.

Fanny Cradock

I'll see how this thread runs. It might be destined for a merge with B,C&P.

Zombrex

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Yeah I was going to put it there but I figured it wouldn't get much commentary, just agreement. Reading the book I just couldn't see how you could accept both evolution and religion. The two just seem so mutually incompatible. Yet plenty of religious people seem to do just that and I wondered how.

Some what ironically evolutionary psychology explains why :pac:

There is regular discussion of this on the A&A forum. In short in the last 10 years there has developed a rather detailed evolutionary explanation for why humans develop religious notions and why these are very powerful and difficult to let go of. Pop over to the A&A forum to learn more.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

JT - evolution debating is done to death and that's not really what I was interested with this thread. All I have to say on teh matter is that as far as I am concerned evolution has been scientifically proven (by this as much as anything else) and no amount of attempted fancy footwork on "but what do you mean by theory, what do you mean by fact" can bypass the data, there for anyone to read in black and white in peer reviewed, respectable academic journals.

In fairness to Jimi he is just repeating (some what inaccurately) what you would be told in the A&A forum, that in science there are philosophical reasons why words like "proven" are avoided (proven in its truest sense means cannot be wrong, and it is impossible to demonstrate that a scientific theory cannot be wrong thus it is impossible to say a scientific theory has been proven).

Of course people use proven in a layman sense all the time, without necessarily implying a sense of absolute infallibility, such as saying I've that the car won't start with sugar in the tank, or proven that I love my girlfriend by buying her flowers.

Confusion arises when the lay-man notions of these words and the strict scientific notions are used at the same time.

Chuck Stone

Why do you need sumthng to believe in?

Believe in yourself.

Zombrex

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why do you need sumthng to believe in?

Believe in yourself.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter... :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXesMkAYh44

himnextdoor

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So if evolution has replaced god in teh creation myth then what is left? If god didn't create the world and all that's in it why worship him? Or is he even there?

I don't think that 'The Theory of Evolution' has replaced God; one could simply argue that God 'built in' evolution so that we might cope with changes of environment. And that is reasonable in the same way as the Big-Bang theory is acceptable on the basis that God lit the fuse, so to speak.

Even the most skeptical of atheists would agree that the creation story as told by Genesis is a good starting point for those who wish to understand the history of the world and beyond. For one thing, Genesis provides the first questions that the student will address. It is as if Genesis were saying, "This is what we know so far" and the writer of Genesis thought that that was what he knew. Of that I have no doubt.

But Moses was not concerned with science and even the most ardent Christian would agree that had Moses been a quantum physicist then Genesis would probably be even more incomprehesible than it is now.

It has already been said on this thread and, I imagine, on many others too, that the creation story was never meant to be taken literally but one also has to bear in mind that the King James' Bible is an interpretation of Hebrew documents and some things have been lost in translation. And added. For instance, I understand that the Hebrew word for 'day' is the same word as the Hebrew word for 'age' or 'era'. If you substitute the word 'era' for 'day' in the creation story you get a narrative which conforms more to the modern scientific narrative, i.e., somehow it all started, things happened and here we are.

And like science, religion shrugs its shoulders and scratches its head from time to time. The meaning of the Bible depends on the understanding of it.

kelly1

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So if evolution has replaced god in teh creation myth then what is left? If god didn't create the world and all that's in it why worship him? Or is he even there?

A perfectly reasonable question Amadeus. Creationists have their heads firmly planted in the sand IMO.

This whole debate arose because of a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Genesis story remained unquestioned (afaik) until Copernicus began to question whether the earth was actually at the centre of the Cosmos. At the time Genesis was written there was no science to speak of and the authors we more interested in showing that God is responsible for all that exists and that He is a providential God. The ancient Hebrews couldn't possibly know about the scale of the universe or the big-bang etc so they wrote from their limited experience.

As a Catholic, I believe the big-bang theory and that evolution did and does occur. What I'm uncertain about is how life came to exist. Did it happen spontaneously or did God arrange the molecules to form the first RNA/DNA?

Talking Genesis literally is doomed to failure.

Xcellor

I have asked this question before but never got a satisfactory answer. There are two camps of Christians.

1) Those who believe Genesis is a factual account of creation.
2) Those who believe it tells a story but should not be taken literally.

This is aimed to the ones in camp 2.

Since the lineage of Jesus in the bible is traced back to Adam and indeed characters like King David, Noah, Abraham, Moses etc. At what point did the people in the bible become real?

If you conclude that one is fictitious then what basis do you have to believe than any others are real?

PDN

Xcellor wrote: »

I have asked this question before but never got a satisfactory answer. There are two camps of Christians.

1) Those who believe Genesis is a factual account of creation.
2) Those who believe it tells a story but should not be taken literally.

This is aimed to the ones in camp 2.

Since the lineage of Jesus in the bible is traced back to Adam and indeed characters like King David, Noah, Abraham, Moses etc. At what point did the people in the bible become real?

If you conclude that one is fictitious then what basis do you have to believe than any others are real?

Those who believe that Genesis Chapters 1-3 are not to be understood literally usually still accept that the people mentioned are real. Whether it happened by creation or by evolution there was still a first man and a first woman.

Also, you some posters seem to be missing the point by using words such as 'fictitious'.

Take a figure of speech such as, "At the Battle of Stalingrad, Stalin's Russian bear kicked Hitler's ass."

It would be poor English to say the Russian bear, or indeed Hitler's ass-kicking (which are not intended to be taken literally) are 'fictitious'. They are figures of speech.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

The 'fancy footwork' as you put it, is conducted on the evolution side when they take words that have clear definitions, like the word fact, and redefine and use them. As I said, used for their power, but redefined.

I get the sense you regard this as a weakness of science but it is of course a strength. What scientists recognize in their 'redefinition' of these words is that you are always on slippery ground when you start proclaiming 'fact' and 'truth' because further information has a nasty way of coming to light and making fools of us all.

So scientists are happier leaving the door open to further discoveries, unlike many religious people, who casually bandy around terms like 'truth' on the basis of nothing more than their personal conviction.

Who is really abusing the language?

--amadeus--

Interesting replies...

So the religious who don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and accept evolution retain faith by believing that god "lit the fuse", he created life and it has evolved up from there in line with the scientific evidence?

Isn't this the biological equivalent of god didn't create the earth but he did create the big bang? If you are saying he didn't create the actual animals but did create life aren't you simply moving from denying one very well worn and proven set of science (evolution) for another experimentally validated if less well known set of science (abiogenisis)? Given that there is a pretty well documented set of experiments going back half a century on abiogenisis how do you square a belief in god with a refusal to accept it? Isn't accepting evolution but denying non-divine abiogenisis on a par with creationism - indeed you could say that creatonists are more honest in that they literally interpret the bible?

Xcellor

PDN wrote: »

Those who believe that Genesis Chapters 1-3 are not to be understood literally usually still accept that the people mentioned are real. Whether it happened by creation or by evolution there was still a first man and a first woman.

Also, you some posters seem to be missing the point by using words such as 'fictitious'.

Take a figure of speech such as, "At the Battle of Stalingrad, Stalin's Russian bear kicked Hitler's ass."

It would be poor English to say the Russian bear, or indeed Hitler's ass-kicking (which are not intended to be taken literally) are 'fictitious'. They are figures of speech.

OK well that clears it up a bit. So would it be fair to say that all main stream Christians believe Adam and Eve are real people. How they came about is where the debate starts?

PDN

Xcellor wrote: »

OK well that clears it up a bit. So would it be fair to say that all main stream Christians believe Adam and Eve are real people. How they came about is where the debate starts?

No, it would be fair to say that some mainstream Christians believe that.

This isn't a fundamental core truth necessary to salvation, so there is room within historical Christianity for a wide range of opinions on creation and evolution.

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Interesting replies...

So the religious who don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and accept evolution retain faith by believing that god "lit the fuse", he created life and it has evolved up from there in line with the scientific evidence?

Not quite, that description is quite ambiguous - it can describe at least 3 positions.

1. The Deist position would be that God 'lit the fuse' and then stood back and let things work out whatever way the chips happen to fall (sorry for the mixed metaphors). By this view God is like an absentee Landlord.

2. Another position would that God lit the fuse, but so placed the fuse as to ensure that the results would be what we see today.

3. A third view would be that God lit the fuse and has been tweaking and arranging things ever since.

Seaneh

PDN wrote: »

Not quite, that description is quite ambiguous - it can describe at least 3 positions.

1. The Deist position would be that God 'lit the fuse' and then stood back and let things work out whatever way the chips happen to fall (sorry for the mixed metaphors). By this view God is like an absentee Landlord.

2. Another position would that God lit the fuse, but so placed the fuse as to ensure that the results would be what we see today.

3. A third view would be that God lit the fuse and has been tweaking and arranging things ever since.

Tis the 3rd view I subscribe to.

As for Adam and Eve I see them as potentially two real people and as the first fully developed humans.
I've always said I believe that their role in genesis is a story about how civilisation developed.
Farming, animal husbandry, irrigation, etc.
They were from the area where it is accepted modern civilisation originated (somewhere between the Nile and the ganges), so make is entirely work able.


Abraham didn't become the first jew and move to what is now Israel until much, much later.

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

When man designs and creates life, it can start to criticize the 'errors'.

That's a little arrogant. Is a person not entitled to criticise the flaws in say, a car, if they haven't designed and built one from scratch themselves?
Humans are at the end of it all just a biological machine with components and processes. If they were indeed designed and created, why can flaws in that design not be pointed out and criticised?

There's a difference between being qualified to make criticism (i.e. having adequate knowledge) and having the experience to make criticisms (i.e. having created the thing yourself).

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

(sorry for the mixed metaphors).

Very Pauline of you

Zombrex

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Interesting replies...

So the religious who don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and accept evolution retain faith by believing that god "lit the fuse", he created life and it has evolved up from there in line with the scientific evidence?

Isn't this the biological equivalent of god didn't create the earth but he did create the big bang? If you are saying he didn't create the actual animals but did create life aren't you simply moving from denying one very well worn and proven set of science (evolution) for another experimentally validated if less well known set of science (abiogenisis)? Given that there is a pretty well documented set of experiments going back half a century on abiogenisis how do you square a belief in god with a refusal to accept it? Isn't accepting evolution but denying non-divine abiogenisis on a par with creationism - indeed you could say that creatonists are more honest in that they literally interpret the bible?

God created the Big Bang. And when we find out he didn't, then he will have created the thing that created the Big Bang :P

--amadeus--

PDN wrote: »

Not quite, that description is quite ambiguous - it can describe at least 3 positions.

1. The Deist position would be that God 'lit the fuse' and then stood back and let things work out whatever way the chips happen to fall (sorry for the mixed metaphors). By this view God is like an absentee Landlord.

2. Another position would that God lit the fuse, but so placed the fuse as to ensure that the results would be what we see today.

3. A third view would be that God lit the fuse and has been tweaking and arranging things ever since.

But all of those assume a "fuse lighter" whereas there seems to be any number of solid scientific theories that better explain the process, backed up by experiments and biological discoveries.

I suppose I'm struggling to see the distinction between denying evolution and denying abiogenisis. If you are persuaded by the science of one then why not the science of teh other? And if you are then where is god?

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But all of those assume a "fuse lighter" whereas there seems to be any number of solid scientific theories that better explain the process, backed up by experiments and biological discoveries.

I suppose I'm struggling to see the distinction between denying evolution and denying abiogenisis. If you are persuaded by the science of one then why not the science of teh other? And if you are then where is god?

Evolution needs some 'stuff' to work with - ie life.

Abiogenesis needs some 'stuff' to work with - ie matter.

God may have created present life forms by evolution or by some other process. Both views are compatible with God.

God may have created the first life form by abiogenesis or by some other process. Both views are compatible with God.

I find the issues of evolution and abiogenesis as interesting, but I don't see either as bearing much on the issue of God's existence.

Panrich

So if Genesis can be seen as a metaphor to explain the beginnings of the universe we are left with something else to ponder. A central tenet of the bible (original sin) emerges from this book. If Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden etc. are a metaphor, then what actual sin was Jesus atoning for?

PDN

Panrich wrote: »

So if Genesis can be seen as a metaphor to explain the beginnings of the universe we are left with something else to ponder. A central tenet of the bible (original sin) emerges from this book. If Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden etc. are a metaphor, then what actual sin was Jesus atoning for?

You seem to be misunderstanding Christian doctrine. Jesus didn't die to atone for original sin. He died to atone for the sins you committed and I committed.

Also, as pointed out already, most Christians don't believe that Adam and Eve are a metaphor - rather that their creation is told as a metaphor. Think again of Hitler getting his ass kicked at Stalingrad - that is a metaphor - but Hitler still existed and suffered a defeat.

Panrich

PDN wrote: »

You seem to be misunderstanding Christian doctrine. Jesus didn't die to atone for original sin. He died to atone for the sins you committed and I committed.

Also, as pointed out already, most Christians don't believe that Adam and Eve are a metaphor - rather that their creation is told as a metaphor. Think again of Hitler getting his ass kicked at Stalingrad - that is a metaphor - but Hitler still existed and suffered a defeat.

Thank you. It's not very intuitive to me. I thought original sin was something that we were all born with due to the failings of Eve in the garden of eden and therefore formed part of why Jesus died on the cross. Was original sin excluded from the atonement?
Now I can see where you are coming from with the removal of the central players from the story that created them but it weakens any subsequent calls to them in my opinion. Take Adam and Eve out of creation and you are left with a very dubious tale regarding original sin that doesn't really hold water on it's own merits.

PDN

Panrich wrote: »

Thank you. It's not very intuitive to me. I thought original sin was something that we were all born with due to the failings of Eve in the garden of eden and therefore formed part of why Jesus died on the cross. Was original sin excluded from the atonement?

Original sin is a tendency we are born with to commit sin. The atonement was to pay the penalty for the sins we have committed.

Now I can see where you are coming from with the removal of the central players from the story that created them but it weakens any subsequent calls to them in my opinion. Take Adam and Eve out of creation and you are left with a very dubious tale regarding original sin that doesn't really hold water on it's own merits.

Adam and Eve have not been removed, no more than Hitler was removed from history by our using a metaphor concerning him.

twinQuins

PDN wrote: »

Adam and Eve have not been removed, no more than Hitler was removed from history by our using a metaphor concerning him.

The difference being the mountains of evidence and eye-witness accounts (some from people still alive) of Hitler's existence.

Just because it's allegorical doesn't automatically mean it exists. How could it?
The point isn't that because Adam and Eve are used allegorically they don't exist, it's that they only exist within the confines of the allegory.

If you accept the precepts of evolution (or even basic biology) you can't then say that Adam and Eve actually existed as the first humans. The two are contradictory.

Zombrex

twinQuins wrote: »

The difference being the mountains of evidence and eye-witness accounts (some from people still alive) of Hitler's existence.

Just because it's allegorical doesn't automatically mean it exists. How could it?
The point isn't that because Adam and Eve are used allegorically they don't exist, it's that they only exist within the confines of the allegory.

If you accept the precepts of evolution (or even basic biology) you can't then say that Adam and Eve actually existed as the first humans. The two are contradictory.

That wasn't PDN's point.

If "first humans" is a metaphor then evolution doesn't contradict this. Just like saying aerodynamics doesn't contradict saying Hitler descended on France because Hitler didn't actually descend through the air into France.

A common Christian interpretation is that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls, or the first humans who were in communication with God.

twinQuins

My apologies, so.

Bacon and Cabbage

Stop saying "teh"

the culture of deference

PDN wrote: »

Original sin is a tendency we are born with to commit sin. The atonement was to pay the penalty for the sins we have committed.


Adam and Eve have not been removed, no more than Hitler was removed from history by our using a metaphor concerning him.

Is that because we are primates?

Did we have souls 65 million years ago?

Catholicism supports evolution, is it conceivable to people of faith that God created bacteria, and filled the universe with this material and then had no further part in its development.

Evolution contradicts that he made the world in 7 days, so if we cannot take the 1st book lierally why should we believe any others?

AhSureTisGrand

Bacon and Cabbage wrote: »

Stop saying "teh"

I was tempted to say this but I was afraid I'd be breaking some rules somewhere

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

I get the sense you regard this as a weakness of science but it is of course a strength. What scientists recognize in their 'redefinition' of these words is that you are always on slippery ground when you start proclaiming 'fact' and 'truth' because further information has a nasty way of coming to light and making fools of us all.

There are perfectly good English words for such things without redefining already defined words.

So scientists are happier leaving the door open to further discoveries,

Well, if someone makes a proclamation that something is a fact, then it should be what it is, a FACT. If its not a fact, use an appropriate term instead.

unlike many religious people, who casually bandy around terms like 'truth' on the basis of nothing more than their personal conviction.

Truth is what it is, and when a Christian uses it, he's not talking about half truthes etc, he's saying it as you said with conviction. This is not so when it comes to people using 'fact' when they don't actually believe it IS a fact. Instead, they redefine fact. As I mentioned, using its power as a certainty, but not actually meaning that.

Who is really abusing the language?

The people who use words that have a defined meaning for efect, but when questioned, redefine the word rather than backing down and using the appropriate term.

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

That's a little arrogant.

I think the word you are looking for is CORRECT Jimmy Carr

Is a person not entitled to criticise the flaws in say, a car, if they haven't designed and built one from scratch themselves?
Humans are at the end of it all just a biological machine with components and processes. If they were indeed designed and created, why can flaws in that design not be pointed out and criticised?

Says the creature. Man is limited in knowledge, and what he see's as flaws, could well be due to his arrogance, ignorance and ineptitude of his understanding.

There's a difference between being qualified to make criticism (i.e. having adequate knowledge) and having the experience to make criticisms (i.e. having created the thing yourself).

And when someone is in receipt of the relevant knowledge to truly call certain things flaws in the human design, it can be taken seriously.

PDN

the culture of deference wrote: »

Evolution contradicts that he made the world in 7 days, so if we cannot take the 1st book lierally why should we believe any others?

Well you shouldn't 'believe' the others if you think that believing something means taking everything literally.

Unless of course you think that the trees of the fields literally grow arms and clap their hands, or that Jesus is a literal vine with grapes growing out of His ears, or that the nations of Judah and Samaria are literal women who had sex with men with donkey-proportioned penises.

We are supposed to take literally what was intended to be taken literally, and take as figues of speech or as poetry those passages that were meant to be taken as such.

PDN

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I was tempted to say this but I was afraid I'd be breaking some rules somewhere

You were right to be so afraid. We don't welcome grammar and spelling police.

himnextdoor

Snip.

Less trolling, please.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if someone makes a proclamation that something is a fact, then it should be what it is, a FACT. If its not a fact, use an appropriate term instead.

But we can't win can we? If we say something is a theory then you denigrate it by saying it's 'only' a theory. You can, of course, never prove a scientific theory because by definition you can never know what you don't know (something you religious types might usefully reflect on). Proof is for mathematicians and fools.

The point is that evolution is as close to being a fact as is scientifically demonstrable. But you still won't accept it, despite not being able to come up with any meaningful contradicting evidence.

It should be easy to falsify evolution - you just need to find a genome that is too complex for its place in the archaeological record. If you're right, there ought to be millions of examples, but amazingly no one has ever been able to come up with one. So instead we have to listen to the spurious ravings of AIG.

If you really believe what you say, I should go and stick a tenner on somebody coming up with a DNA-based falsification of evolution in the next ten years. You could get very rich indeed, and ensure your place in eternity by giving all that lovely money away to the poor and needy.

philologos

the culture of deference wrote: »

Evolution contradicts that he made the world in 7 days, so if we cannot take the 1st book lierally why should we believe any others?

On that note should I just take all four Gospels as a beginners guide to Middle Eastern agriculture? Just wondering

himnextdoor

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

If you read what I said you'll find I wasn't trolling. In fact, I was supporting the original text of the Bible by suggesting that we may be reading it incorrectly.

The Bible is not the arbiter of whether or not there is a God, it is a collection of stories said to have been inspired by God and as such there were a few 'ghost-stories' admitted.

This is a matter of common sense, not faith.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

If you read what I said you'll find I wasn't trolling. In fact, I was supporting the original text of the Bible by suggesting that we may be reading it incorrectly.

Thank goodness you're (PDN) not allowed to burn heretics anymore.

The Bible is not the arbiter of whether or not there is a God, it is a collection of stories said to have been inspired by God and as such there were a few 'ghost-stories' admitted.

This is a matter of common sense, not faith.

I really think you would be better off adapting your attitude or posting elsewhere.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Says the creature. Man is limited in knowledge, and what he see's as flaws, could well be due to his arrogance, ignorance and ineptitude of his understanding.

But not when man sees goodness, holiness, perfection, flawlessness, righteousness, justice, the miraculous?

Do you call it arrogance, ignorance or ineptitude when man looks around him and concludes that not only was all this made by some creator but that he has some how figured out the creator is the one described in his religion.

Or only when he looks around and says No actually that doesn't make sense

the culture of deference

PDN wrote: »

Well you shouldn't 'believe' the others if you think that believing something means taking everything literally.


We are supposed to take literally what was intended to be taken literally, and take as figues of speech or as poetry those passages that were meant to be taken as such.

How do you tell what is real then.

Are you telling me that your belief in God is just down to how you interpret certain things you think he meant.

Fanny Cradock

All of us use interpretation in our lives. It isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

I guess one must be willing to work off the axiom that there is a thing called Truth (an ultimate truth) and that by studying the Bible we can determine what that Truth is. In other words, we work of the assumption that the various authors had an intended meaning behind their words (Truth in other words) and that through study, which is under-girded by exegetical and hermetical techniques, prayer and discussion, we can begin to get to the heart of these Truths.

plaasjapie

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm just coming to the end of Dawkins (brilliant) book on evolution. It's a very easy to read and diverting book and it a great primer in the facts of evolution.

Which one? Great reads, but probably better discussed elsewhere. This is the Christian section after all. (EDIT: Just to point out, I know that Chatholics believe in Evolution, and so does the Pope. Please dont PM me regarding this again.)

I used to be a Christian. A firm believer if ever there was one. Then I read "Misquoting Jesus" a book on the history of the bible. After that, I couldnt see any reason to believe a word of what was written in the bible. I still believed in god, and would sit on the bus, thinking about how god was going to strike me down for doubting.

Then I read Dawkin's "The God Delusion", and I stopped believing. I have never been happier.

Where is the wonder in the world now? I find it in Science. I go to the MIT website, and watch a couple of lectures on Chemistry, Biology, or whatever interests me, read Freakonomics, or "the name of the wind". The world is full of wonder, and nobody needs to believe in god.

People often claim that I "believe" that there is no god. I answer that I dont believe in god the same way they dont "believe" in Thor. We are all atheists after all, it's just the gods we dont believe in that vary.

And to conclude, I try not to be too adversarial when I talk to believers regarding my non belief. As an athiest, I dont need to be a missionary. I let others believe what they like as long as it doesnt affect me adversely. in the words of Penn & Teller: Everybody's got a juju...