Regarding the Existence or Absence of God
- Thread starter rs7
- Start date
- Status
It is said that evolution implies atheism. "If evolution is a fact, then God does not exist." As will become apparent, though, evolution does NOT imply atheism. The idea that it does is a misconception.
If evolution implies that God does not exist, then believers in God could not reasonably accept evolution, and those who accept the extensive evidence for evolution cannot rationally believe in God. Of course, this idea automatically serves to prejudice theists against consideration of evolution and evolutionists against consideration of theism. Indeed, we see this prejudicial form of discussion practiced frequently and intentionally by many creationists. Christians who are already prejudiced against evolution heartily concur with the opinion that evolution implies atheism while attempting to persuade other Christians to reject evolution for the reason that their acceptance of evolution would logically require them to reject God.
But let's properly analyze this claim of evolution's implied atheism.
If a Christian accepts the contention that evolution implies atheism, then she or he will probably never be willing to give fair consideration to the idea of evolution, either in terms of genuinely understanding the relevant concepts or in terms of genuinely examining the empirical information on which it is based. Those who truly believe that evolution is a "tool of Satan" to deceive true believers into unbelief will never ponder the possibility that evolution might be the true state of the world -- and will have thus rendered impotent the responsibility to be intellectually honest.
But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe. Furthermore, it is this unsophisticated theological conception that has strongly contributed to the historical antagonism between religion and science. Indeed, the antipathy that exists today among conservative religious people toward the methods of scientific inquiry may have its very basis in this primitive theology. And, because of prejudices like this, there is a prevalent view among conservative Christians that science is an enemy of religion. However, a view's prevalence is not what determines its validity.
Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God, then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist."
Let's look at this presentation in another context: "The orbit of the earth around the sun is due to natural processes. Thus, the earth's orbit does not involve supernatural activity and does not require supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist." Or how about this one: "The decay of radioactive elements proceeds according to the natural, physical properties of the makup of matter. Since radiation does not involve the intervention of divine power, God does not exist."
You may have received a forceful impression from the latter two examples that the earth's orbit being a result of gravitational mechanisms, or radiation being a result of subatomic interactions, has nothing to do with whether or not God exits and that the whole syllogism is a non sequitur. This impression is absolutely correct! Moreover, it demonstrates that the former presentation is also a non sequitur, for the two are logically equivalent.
The reason for this is that categorizing something as a "natural process," no matter what it is, does not mean that it then becomes a tool used in the workshop of atheism as evidence that God doesn't exist. Indeed, it does not even address the question.
Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that 7 x 3 = 21 because God exists? Do we say that the trigonometric tangent of a 45° angle is 1 if and only if God does not exist? Rain has natural causes and natural effects; does the existence of rain therefore prove or disprove the existence of God? If its nature as a natural process was relevant to the religious discussion, then meteorology alone would make the case for atheism.
When looked at in this way, these questions appear absurd. Instead of being "theistic" or "atheistic," it is more proper, I think, to say "nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas that make no reference to whether or not God exists? You can never say of nontheistic concepts that they are true if and only if God exists or if and only if God does not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent of consideration of God's existence. Evolution â like the theory of relativity, Goldbach's conjecture, and the size of Proxima Centauri â is not atheistic, nor is it theistic. Evolution is nontheistic.
Evolution does not imply atheism â accepting the idea of evolution does not imply that one must be without belief in God. Evolution is, however, nontheistic â it is a description of events and processes that is without reference to God. Evolution, like astronomy and chemistry, for example, is an area of scientific inquiry that is, and must be, performed without reference to supernatural activity.
So when you hear someone say that evolution is atheism, it is important to determine what that person is trying to say. Is she or he claiming that evolutionists must, in order to be consistent, reject belief in God? If so, then the speaker must be asked to justify her or his statement, and careful attention must be paid to the justification she or he provides, for it will invariably contain flaws like those mentioned here.
Finally, we just have to ask this question of those who try to form such an obviously prejudicial disjunction as this in the minds of those they would try to persuade in this way: Is it impossible for evolution to be a process "put in motion" by God, in the same manner as all other natural processes that is the purpose of our scientific inquiry to investigate? Why are you trying to limit the power and ingenuity of God with your own human prejudices?
Yes, I believe in evolution (even though I busted people's balls by pretending I don't) and I am a Christian. I don't believe that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) like the Fundamentalist Creationists do. I believe that the Old Testament is based on myths, stories and SOME historical facts designed to shed light on the Hebrews' relationship to God and are not meant to be taken in a literal context. Does this mean that I'm an aethiest? No. I consider myself to be a thinking man's Christian. A renaissance religious man for the new millennium!
If evolution implies that God does not exist, then believers in God could not reasonably accept evolution, and those who accept the extensive evidence for evolution cannot rationally believe in God. Of course, this idea automatically serves to prejudice theists against consideration of evolution and evolutionists against consideration of theism. Indeed, we see this prejudicial form of discussion practiced frequently and intentionally by many creationists. Christians who are already prejudiced against evolution heartily concur with the opinion that evolution implies atheism while attempting to persuade other Christians to reject evolution for the reason that their acceptance of evolution would logically require them to reject God.
But let's properly analyze this claim of evolution's implied atheism.
If a Christian accepts the contention that evolution implies atheism, then she or he will probably never be willing to give fair consideration to the idea of evolution, either in terms of genuinely understanding the relevant concepts or in terms of genuinely examining the empirical information on which it is based. Those who truly believe that evolution is a "tool of Satan" to deceive true believers into unbelief will never ponder the possibility that evolution might be the true state of the world -- and will have thus rendered impotent the responsibility to be intellectually honest.
But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe. Furthermore, it is this unsophisticated theological conception that has strongly contributed to the historical antagonism between religion and science. Indeed, the antipathy that exists today among conservative religious people toward the methods of scientific inquiry may have its very basis in this primitive theology. And, because of prejudices like this, there is a prevalent view among conservative Christians that science is an enemy of religion. However, a view's prevalence is not what determines its validity.
Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God, then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist."
Let's look at this presentation in another context: "The orbit of the earth around the sun is due to natural processes. Thus, the earth's orbit does not involve supernatural activity and does not require supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist." Or how about this one: "The decay of radioactive elements proceeds according to the natural, physical properties of the makup of matter. Since radiation does not involve the intervention of divine power, God does not exist."
You may have received a forceful impression from the latter two examples that the earth's orbit being a result of gravitational mechanisms, or radiation being a result of subatomic interactions, has nothing to do with whether or not God exits and that the whole syllogism is a non sequitur. This impression is absolutely correct! Moreover, it demonstrates that the former presentation is also a non sequitur, for the two are logically equivalent.
The reason for this is that categorizing something as a "natural process," no matter what it is, does not mean that it then becomes a tool used in the workshop of atheism as evidence that God doesn't exist. Indeed, it does not even address the question.
Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that 7 x 3 = 21 because God exists? Do we say that the trigonometric tangent of a 45° angle is 1 if and only if God does not exist? Rain has natural causes and natural effects; does the existence of rain therefore prove or disprove the existence of God? If its nature as a natural process was relevant to the religious discussion, then meteorology alone would make the case for atheism.
When looked at in this way, these questions appear absurd. Instead of being "theistic" or "atheistic," it is more proper, I think, to say "nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas that make no reference to whether or not God exists? You can never say of nontheistic concepts that they are true if and only if God exists or if and only if God does not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent of consideration of God's existence. Evolution â like the theory of relativity, Goldbach's conjecture, and the size of Proxima Centauri â is not atheistic, nor is it theistic. Evolution is nontheistic.
Evolution does not imply atheism â accepting the idea of evolution does not imply that one must be without belief in God. Evolution is, however, nontheistic â it is a description of events and processes that is without reference to God. Evolution, like astronomy and chemistry, for example, is an area of scientific inquiry that is, and must be, performed without reference to supernatural activity.
So when you hear someone say that evolution is atheism, it is important to determine what that person is trying to say. Is she or he claiming that evolutionists must, in order to be consistent, reject belief in God? If so, then the speaker must be asked to justify her or his statement, and careful attention must be paid to the justification she or he provides, for it will invariably contain flaws like those mentioned here.
Finally, we just have to ask this question of those who try to form such an obviously prejudicial disjunction as this in the minds of those they would try to persuade in this way: Is it impossible for evolution to be a process "put in motion" by God, in the same manner as all other natural processes that is the purpose of our scientific inquiry to investigate? Why are you trying to limit the power and ingenuity of God with your own human prejudices?
Yes, I believe in evolution (even though I busted people's balls by pretending I don't) and I am a Christian. I don't believe that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) like the Fundamentalist Creationists do. I believe that the Old Testament is based on myths, stories and SOME historical facts designed to shed light on the Hebrews' relationship to God and are not meant to be taken in a literal context. Does this mean that I'm an aethiest? No. I consider myself to be a thinking man's Christian. A renaissance religious man for the new millennium!
You're a bozo. You have some of the dumbest responses.
Originally posted by MrDinky
If you believe in evolution - you are religious.
AMEN!
Do you know this for a FACT? Then why is it that, according to a poll taken by the Washington Times on August 31, 1998, only 55% of US scientists believe in Darwinian Evolution?
Basically, I have slightly more than a 50/50 chance of getting a pro-evolution standpoint so let's kill that misconception right now.
is a belief in God not substantiated by all of the available evidence? certainly it is. it's a belief, yes, but an entirely rational one.
MAJOR NEWSFLASH......
I just got another call from my old pal, God Himself.
Turns out that he was indeed calling me last time from Superman's Fortress of Solitude as I suspected. No big deal about that, EXCEPT, he checked out some of his old DC Comics he keeps stashed there (the old King James versions) and it jogged his memory....
Thunderbolt is the Bizarro World Murray The Turtle!
Now it all makes perfect sense. Nonsense rules! Tbolt is supposed to say stuff like:
If you believe in evolution - you are religious.
AMEN!
I just got another call from my old pal, God Himself.
Turns out that he was indeed calling me last time from Superman's Fortress of Solitude as I suspected. No big deal about that, EXCEPT, he checked out some of his old DC Comics he keeps stashed there (the old King James versions) and it jogged his memory....
Thunderbolt is the Bizarro World Murray The Turtle!
Now it all makes perfect sense. Nonsense rules! Tbolt is supposed to say stuff like:
If you believe in evolution - you are religious.
AMEN!
"Science facts are things that can be observed, tested, and demonstrated."
Evolution has been observed. The kind that happens
between species, obviously, can never be observed
because of the time involved.
But like a river which cuts a canyon through stone, this
still can be proven scientifically.
Creationists must think that canyons are NOT cut from rivers.
You could show them 10 pictures of 10 different stages
of a river cutting through a canyon, and they would say, IT CANT
BE TRUE!! There's a gap between pic 3 and 4!!!!
Then you would fill this gap with 4 more evenly spaced
pics and they would say: IT CANT BE TRUE!!! There is
a gap between pics 3.4.1 and 3.4.4!!!
You could show them mini versions of the same process
that occurs in their own backyard after a rain, and they
still would deny it. The process has been observed.
It has been observed on many scales, and the evidence
exists that it has occured on scales beyond our
human lifetimes. The evidence is overwhelming.
This is why the scientific community considers
evolution FACT. Ask any real scientist.
Creationists simply cannot accept this on ANY grounds
because it contradicts their belief systems. Simple as that.
They are being completely irrational and blind to reality.
peace
axeman
Evolution has been observed. The kind that happens
between species, obviously, can never be observed
because of the time involved.
But like a river which cuts a canyon through stone, this
still can be proven scientifically.
Creationists must think that canyons are NOT cut from rivers.
You could show them 10 pictures of 10 different stages
of a river cutting through a canyon, and they would say, IT CANT
BE TRUE!! There's a gap between pic 3 and 4!!!!
Then you would fill this gap with 4 more evenly spaced
pics and they would say: IT CANT BE TRUE!!! There is
a gap between pics 3.4.1 and 3.4.4!!!
You could show them mini versions of the same process
that occurs in their own backyard after a rain, and they
still would deny it. The process has been observed.
It has been observed on many scales, and the evidence
exists that it has occured on scales beyond our
human lifetimes. The evidence is overwhelming.
This is why the scientific community considers
evolution FACT. Ask any real scientist.
Creationists simply cannot accept this on ANY grounds
because it contradicts their belief systems. Simple as that.
They are being completely irrational and blind to reality.
peace
axeman
Originally posted by MrDinky
Hmmm... rational proof and material evidence to the contrary? When I first started reading this thread I was looking for this. Personally, I think you and a few others presented a much stronger argument, but 200+ pages later I still haven't seen anything that proves the Bible or any other religion cannot be true. That wasn't my point, however, and I'll try to keep religion out of it.
My point is evolutionists may as well be worshipping Charles Darwin. I suppose there are some advantages to this. Scientific FACT, however? No way. Science facts are things that can be observed, tested, and demonstrated. The theory of evolution is far from being a scientific fact.
Darwinian evolution came very close to explaining
evolution. The overall concept is correct, but he was
simply wrong in some aspects. If you polled scientists
who specifically study evolution, I would guess that ALL
of them would claim that darwinian evolution is not accurate.
There is no misconception. When people debate evolution
today, it is not typically Darwinian evolution.
It would be difficult to even call Darwinian evolution a
theory because it actually consisted of approximately
six different theories.
Scientists know that evolution occurs, just as they knew the
earth rotated around the sun, but are still refining their
models and trying to pinpoint the very exact mechanisms.
Science, unlike religion, has no problem rejecting previous
knowledge, and refining it as new knowledge is obtained.
It is OPEN to change.
peace
axeman
evolution. The overall concept is correct, but he was
simply wrong in some aspects. If you polled scientists
who specifically study evolution, I would guess that ALL
of them would claim that darwinian evolution is not accurate.
There is no misconception. When people debate evolution
today, it is not typically Darwinian evolution.
It would be difficult to even call Darwinian evolution a
theory because it actually consisted of approximately
six different theories.
Scientists know that evolution occurs, just as they knew the
earth rotated around the sun, but are still refining their
models and trying to pinpoint the very exact mechanisms.
Science, unlike religion, has no problem rejecting previous
knowledge, and refining it as new knowledge is obtained.
It is OPEN to change.
peace
axeman
Originally posted by MrDinky
Do you know this for a FACT? Then why is it that, according to a poll taken by the Washington Times on August 31, 1998, only 55% of US scientists believe in Darwinian Evolution?
Basically, I have slightly more than a 50/50 chance of getting a pro-evolution standpoint so let's kill that misconception right now.
- Status