Evolution interferring with religion?

[IrishEyes]

Irish: First, I'll apologize for my tone, and I actually try to keep myself in check, but sometimes the more strident views expressed by many religions are a little scary to me and sometimes I slip.

Apology accepted.
And as to the rest of your post, I basically agree with you. I am also scared of what is expressed by many religions. However, in order to censor them, or tell anyone that their views are incorrect, that would require the same for everyone. Personally, though I do not agree with a lot of things that are held to be true in some "Christian" religions, I fully accept their right to their own opinions and their own interpretations of the Bible, as literal or not, as long as they do not expect me to adhere to their views.

Yes, I agree about the Biblical Inerrancy part, although I have a different take on it. However, as it has nothing to do with this topic and is much more suited to a discussion on theology, I will keep it to myself for now.

I just get very tired of being labeled an extremist, especially when the views that I hold were considered very standard less than one hundred years ago, and the views that are now 'normal' were extreme not too long ago. I think it's dangerous to create those labels, and espcailly disturbing when people say them without understanding what they are saying. Close-minded? Me? Most people would laugh at that! Fundamentalist though I may be, I am one of the more open-minded people at this site. However, there is a difference between having an open mind, and letting things fall right out of your head onto your keyboard. Discretion is the better part of valor, right?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

I just get very tired of being labeled an extremist, especially when the views that I hold were considered very standard less than one hundred years ago, and the views that are now 'normal' were extreme not too long ago. I think it's dangerous to create those labels, and espcailly disturbing when people say them without understanding what they are saying. Close-minded? Me? Most people would laugh at that! Fundamentalist though I may be, I am one of the more open-minded people at this site. However, there is a difference between having an open mind, and letting things fall right out of your head onto your keyboard. Discretion is the better part of valor, right?

Amen!

Cheers,
Buffy

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by C1ay

That is not necessarily negative, but to simply claim that something is so just because you believe it and that alternatives are not possible is close-minded.

Good. I was hoping we were on the same level here.

There are also those that claim there is no God, the atheists, and they believe we were not created, no ifs, ands or buts. That is their faith and it is just as close-minded as the absolute belief of creation.

Uhm...we're not going down the "atheism is a faith" route again. Been there, done that, so many times now. Sorry. I am an atheist, and I do not believe in creation, nor any god or intelligent designer. Do you consider me close minded?

[Stargazer]

If you want a religion that does not go against science, then you must be prepared to change that religion to fit the scientific worldview which can change and adapt at any time.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

I'm going to try to ignore the obvious insults and just answer what was, I think, the original question. I am also going to ask that you guys watch how you label people. I can't remember the last time I called anyone around here a "godless humanist",

Ok. I suppose the godless humanists gladly call themselves that, anyway. It's not really an insult, you see :-)

or told anyone that they'd "for sure be condemned to eternal damnation on Judgement day",

I wouldn't be very offended by that, because I know it's a baseless assertion, and so certainly I'm not the one that comes in bad light.

The question, "How the hell does Evolution disturb religious beliefs" has quite a few answers, in my opinion. However, from your post, inside the sun, I'm not sure what you really want anwered. The idea of the human race evolving from some primordial soup goes against what is written in the Bible. That is how it disturbs religious beliefs.

It's a good thing that it doesn't go against what is found in the real world, then.

Regardless of how silly you might think we are, there are millions of people that take the Bible literally. Yes, we're used to being called deluded, and even crazy. But you asked how it disturbs 'religious beliefs', and that's one of the ways. To people that believe in a literal creation, and a literal God, evolution does not fit with what they have accepted as true.

And it is important to know that biblical creation has absolutely no support. Oh right, reminds me of another thread I'm going to look up now... Maybe later then. I was hoping for evidence that showed the Bible correct, and completely overturned real scientific theories.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

If you want a religion that does not go against science, then you must be prepared to change that religion to fit the scientific worldview which can change and adapt at any time.

Not really, you need a religion that exists seperate from science. Apples and oranges type thing. If fact, the Bible says God should be revealed through creation- implying we should study it. Fear of what we are going to find is a weakness in any religion, I think. For example, a religion where God could have creating the universe through evolution, where creation exists apart from the Divine. I think a self-sustaining and self-perpetuating world is consistent with most religions, once the spectre of literalist interpritations of the truth is removed from Biblical readings. Things can be true and not literally true at the same time.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by bumab

Not really, you need a religion that exists seperate from science. Apples and oranges type thing. If fact, the Bible says God should be revealed through creation- implying we should study it. Fear of what we are going to find is a weakness in any religion, I think. For example, a religion where God could have creating the universe through evolution, where creation exists apart from the Divine. I think a self-sustaining and self-perpetuating world is consistent with most religions, once the spectre of literalist interpritations of the truth is removed from Biblical readings. Things can be true and not literally true at the same time.

But the concept of religion, that is baseless blind faith, superfluous entities etc. do clash with science. Not many can accept this, for some reason, yet they think that they can pick and choose among the theories so that it fits their made-up worldview. Strange to say the least. "General relativity is ok... germ theory is ok... evolution, nope, gotta go..."

And yes, if you don't want your religion to clash too much with the scientific worldview, then you have to change it when our observations give us more data.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

But the concept of religion, that is baseless blind faith, superfluous entities etc. do clash with science. Not many can accept this, for some reason, yet they think that they can pick and choose among the theories so that it fits their made-up worldview. Strange to say the least. "General relativity is ok... germ theory is ok... evolution, nope, gotta go..."

To be honest, I think we all do this to some extent, religious or not.

And "the concept of religion" is not "baseless, blind faith". And it does not have to clash with science.

Okay, strange coming from me, I guess. But I do have scientist friends who are religious. They are not deeply so, perhaps verging on agnostic, but nevertheless they do believe in a creator in some sense. They are neither close-minded nor alien to the scientific method.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Uhm...we're not going down the "atheism is a faith" route again. Been there, done that, so many times now. Sorry. I am an atheist, and I do not believe in creation, nor any god or intelligent designer. Do you consider me close minded?

That depends. Can you prove there is no God? Without proof it is simply a leap of faith that he/she/it doesn't exist.. Are you open to the possibility that maybe there is a God and we just haven't seen enough evidence to support it? That would be open-minded wouldn't it.

I'm personally agnostic because I don't believe anybody can prove that there is or is not a God(s). I have no particular belief either that there is a God or intelligent designer but I will not rule out the possibility without proof. IMO, there is no evidence to support any conclusion as to where and how life began. Since it cannot be ruled out I believe that I must acknowlege that creation is a possibility however remote that possibility is. For me, that is an open-minded belief.

I think to a large extent we are like thinkers as scientists. I am a firm believer in scientific method so I am resistant to discard anything I cannot disprove as impossible. In this vein I think I would be a hypocrit to simply claim that creation is impossible because I myself cannot disprove it. That does not mean that it is a theory I support, just that I cannot disprove it. I think it is fair for either side of this debate to call on the other side to prove their position. Since I cannot prove there is no God I feel I must concede to those which believe in God that their theory is possible.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Strange to say the least. "General relativity is ok... germ theory is ok... evolution, nope, gotta go...".

I agree- doesn't make much sense to accept some things and not others.

Originally Posted by Stargazer

And yes, if you don't want your religion to clash too much with the scientific worldview, then you have to change it when our observations give us more data.

If your religion depends on the physical world for validation.

Originally Posted by Stargazer

But the concept of religion, that is baseless blind faith, superfluous entities etc. do clash with science. Not many can accept this, for some reason, yet they think that they can pick and choose among the theories so that it fits their made-up worldview.

I don't think the concept of religion is blind faith. It's faith based on evidence- but a different sort of evidence then science operates in. It's personal experience, others, and people through history. Sure, it's not scientific evidence, and I would never claim otherwise. Religions talk about a God that wants a relationship with YOU, not a relationship with a tree. I doubt there's any interaction there.

On that note, I would be dismayed if the universe required a God to sustain itself. That's hardly the good creation envisioned by the creation stories in so many religions, not just my own.