Is a belife in Theistic Evolution realy such a bad thing?

[Nightmare060]

In my one of my most recent videos (shown above), I comment on TheAmazingAthiest's video ridiculing the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that god (or a supernatural diety) set the process of evolution in place. I myself see this as a posative and constructive way of thinking. It's no secret that a large ammount of the worlds population is religouse. Rather than alienate them and give the creationists backing, I think theistic evolution is a good way to open up many religouse people to the wonders of science. And thus, they would be braught to understand how important it is to humanity and be better to the human race.

I myself do not belive this concept as such (I'm a pantheist. So The Earth = a God). Although I have yet to come across a fundie that is also a theistic evolutionist!

What are your thaughts on my video, and theistic evolution as a whole? Is it good? Bad? Why so?

Descuss!

 

[Homunclus]

I think that when you ask if some believe is good or not you are asking the wrong question. It's not about what is best, it's about what is truth

Theistic evolution states that God made things happen in a way as to look like it wasn't made by him...it's kinda stupid by definition.

And honestly I do wonder if it doesn't help to back up creationist...most religious people seem fine with good old evolution

 

[Fordi]

I'm in a hospital right now, so I can't watch your response video - but I feel the jist of it is in your post, so I'll respond to that.

In my one of my most recent videos (shown above), I comment on TheAmazingAthiest's video ridiculing the idea of theistic evolution.

TJ ridicules everything he finds even a little unpalatable. I don't know about others, but I don't exactly consider him an authority on anything. He rants on hard about this - but I don't see the huge effing deal.

The idea that god (or a supernatural diety) set the process of evolution in place. I myself see this as a positive and constructive way of thinking.

You could say that. You could also call it "silly". We know how the process of evolution gets "set in place". Any population of self-replicating entities undergoes an evolutionary process - you don't need a deity to apply the process to them, it just happens.

It's no secret that a large amount of the worlds population is religious. Rather than alienate them and give the creationists backing, I think theistic evolution is a good way to open up many religous people to the wonders of science.

By allowing a supernatural entity into scientific explanations, you compromise the basics of science itself - that natural phenomena are sufficient to explain the attributes of the universe.

And thus, they would be brought to understand how important it is to humanity and be better to the human race.

Most of your average religious sorts don't need help understanding how important science is to humanity or that they need to be good to each other - though, many of them need help understanding basic science. The people who need to have it hammered in that science is important-and-they-shouldn't-stick-their-fucking-noses-in-if-they're-not-going-to-add-anything-useful are the fundagelical asshats.

I myself do not believe this concept as such (I'm a pantheist. So The Earth = a God). Although I have yet to come across a fundie that is also a theistic evolutionist!

Again, if you don't believe it, there's no purpose in getting others to. That's just dishonest. Those who need evolution to be "theistic" in order to comprehend it, will add that layer of frivolity on themselves. Those who don't, won't.

What are your thoughts [on] theistic evolution as a whole? Is it good? Bad? Why so?

As I said, I don't see it as a big deal. I don't have an interest in apologizing for theistic evolution, as I think it's a useless coating of (ahem) sugar to what is otherwise a solidly understood process and a well-developed theory. If someone needs to [insert deity here] in order to rationalize their religion in the face of reality, so be it - a person's religion is not of my interest - but the second they start pushing that idiocy back into the scientific debate, they should be rightly prepared to get ripped the fuck apart.

 

[Rivius]

I guess it can work somewhat, but there will always be problems with this approach. As science advances and the existence of their God becomes less evident, they will simply drop it again. I think the closest we can get to a theistic evolution is something somewhat deistic... like Spinoza's God.

One problem is the creation account. If genesis's timing and order is proven wrong (which is has) and we get more evidence of abiogenesis, it will cause too much cognitive dissonance for the theist. There will reach a point where they can't modify their beliefs and they will either drop religion or science completely.

Compromises can always be made, but they'll have to drop that book sooner or later (In reference to the christian bible).

 

[Nightmare060]

I'm in a hospital right now, so I can't watch your response video - but I feel the jist of it is in your post, so I'll respond to that.

No probs. Get well soon mate .

TJ ridicules everything he finds even a little unpalatable. I don't know about others, but I don't exactly consider him an authority on anything. He rants on hard about this - but I don't see the huge effing deal.

I'm not exactly saying he's an authoraty figure. I'm just stating my opinion on the subject in reply to him.

You could say that. You could also call it "silly". We know how the process of evolution gets "set in place". Any population of self-replicating entities undergoes an evolutionary process - you don't need a deity to apply the process to them, it just happens.

True it may not be nessacery to involve a diety in the process. However this is one of those things that we can't realy say if it is right or wrong, since it's impossible to prove or disprove either way. Arguing about if the supernatural realy exists is like talking to a brick wall. It's not going to get us anywhere! However I think if the belife (which is just a belife, nothing more, keep in mind) helps theisticly minded people to accept science then it's all for a greater good.

While compromising the basics of it - that a natural phenomena are sufficient to explain the attributes of the universe.

Many think that. I myself am unsure about that (I'm open to the possibility of the supernatural, but I can't say yay or nay either way) as are many others. It's all down to personal philosiphy and opinion in the end. I see no issue with belife of lack of belife in the supernatural.

Most of your average religious sorts don't need help understanding how important science is to humanity or that they need to be good to each other - though, many of them need help understanding basic science.

Well there are still quite a few fundies out there who are under the creationist false premise that religon and science cannot be belived together. I'm sure many christians (the ones I know personaly especialy) already understand how important science is. But the good thing is, they don't feel it threatens their religouse belifes. It sets a good standard which I think more thiests should fallow.

The people who need to have it hammered in that science is important-and-they-shouldn't-stick-their-fucking-noses-in-if-they're-not-going-to-add-anything-useful are the fundagelical asshats.

lol I agree with you there. Many theists already understand how to keep belife and scientific fact seperate. Although unfortunatly today many people still need to understand this!

Again, if you don't believe it, there's no purpose in getting others to. That's just dishonest.

Not nessaceraly. A couple of my freinds have fallen into the trap of creationism because of their strongly held religouse belifes. I feel theistic evolution could be a way out of this. Even if you don't see it as ideal, it could be alot worse!

Those who need evolution to be "theistic" in order to comprehend it, will add that layer of frivolity on themselves. Those who don't, won't.

It's not about comprehending evolution. It's about loosing any internal conflict between personal belife and the physical world. Perhaps in an ideal world, people would be able to accept reality without some form of supernatural. But as long as there can be a method where a belife in the supernatural doesn't replace the real world, then the supernatural shouldn't realy matter.

As I said, I don't see it as a big deal. I don't have an interest in apologizing for theistic evolution, as I think it's a useless coating of (ahem) sugar to what is otherwise a solidly understood process and a well-developed theory. If someone needs to [insert deity here] in order to rationalize their religion in the face of reality, so be it - a person's religion is not of my interest - but the second they start pushing that idiocy back into the scientific debate, they should be rightly prepared to get ripped the fuck apart.

While my view isn't quite as harsh as yours, I do agree with the concept. To quote the wiccan readd (SP?) "An it harm none, do what ye will".

I guess it can work somewhat, but there will always be problems with this approach. As science advances and the existence of their God becomes less evident, they will simply drop it again.

Remember; Science makes no comment on the supernatural. As much as we find the process of how the universe works, it never answers the WHY we are here. Plus theists can easily argue that science is god's progress. So uncovering more about science is uncovering more of gods work. So I doubt we will ever be totaly rid of theism (not that that is entirley a bad thing).

I think the closest we can get to a theistic evolution is something somewhat deistic... like Spinoza's God.

I'm not sure what that is. But as I explained in my video, theistic evolution is essentialy the belife that evolution is a program set in place by god.

One problem is the creation account. If genesis's timing and order is proven wrong (which is has) and we get more evidence of abiogenesis, it will cause too much cognitive dissonance for the theist.

:facepalm: To the best of my knowlage, the majoraty of theistic evolutionists do not take the bible literaly. So the creation acording to genesis isn't meant to be a historical account! Plus you can always say that these are processes created by god. As you can probobly tell by now, it's entirley pointless to argue wether or not the supernatural realy exists. It's unprovable, so you can't claim either as definative truth. But that's going off topic now.

There will reach a point where they can't modify their beliefs and they will either drop religion or science completely.

I'm sorry, but that claim is about as factual as the claim that all of science is converging to debunk evolution.

Compromises can always be made, but they'll have to drop that book sooner or later (In reference to the christian bible).

I highly doubt this. The christian bible is essentialy a book of fables, made across a large stretch of time (in human life standards, of course). You have to take into account the era that it was writen in and that Christ supposedly rejected literalism. No matter how far science progresses, it's not realy going to change any meaning from the bible.

 

[CupOfWater]

Theistic evolution is the better of two evils.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The two are not exactly incompatible. But the issue still remains why should we even put them togheter in the first place?

 

[Nightmare060]

The two are not exactly incompatible. But the issue still remains why should we even put them togheter in the first place?

I think if a theistic belife brings meaning to somones life or is personal to them for one reason or another, it is good that they would not have to abandon reality in order for them to keep the supernatural belifes. I'm not suggesting everyone should be a theistic evolutionist, just that it's far better than fundamentalism and less harmfull in the long run.

 

[Josan]

Theistic evolution is the better of two evils.

It is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Fordi]

I agree with you for the most part, but this is my sticking point:

True it may not be nessacery to involve a diety in the process. However this is one of those things that we can't realy say if it is right or wrong, since it's impossible to prove or disprove either way.

If you have a complete and verifiable explanation for something, it necessarily negates other explanations.

For example, if you have a dollar in your pocket, and memories of my having given it to you, why would you posit that a faerie gave it to you, and was only pretending to be me?

 

[Fordi]

[Theistic evolution] is the lesser of two evils.

It's the lesser of two stupids.

 

[Homunclus]

One thing you criticize TAA because his definition of theistic evolution is off. However I think you are mistaken or at least partially mistaken:

http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a G o d , but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that G o d did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin's evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), G o d stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that G o d acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

TAA was talking about the second type of atheistic evolution and you were talking about the first

However if I had to guess I would say most theistic evolutionists follow the second, so I think TAA points are totally valid...including is comparisons of theistic evolution to goblins puling strings as a complement to gravity

 

[Nightmare060]

If you have a complete and verifiable explanation for something, it necessarily negates other explanations.

Science is the How we got here. Theistic evolutionists aren't arguing that. It's why we are here. They belive we are chosen beings of a supernatural diety. Others of different or no faiths may see it a different way. I think theistic evolution is a middleground for theistic answers as to why, but still having some nessacery grounds in reality with the how.

For example, if you have a dollar in your pocket, and memories of my having given it to you, why would you posit that a faerie gave it to you, and was only pretending to be me?

I think this comes down to the defanition of theistic evolution. After reading Homonculus' defanitions of theistic evolution, those that I have known who are theistic evolutionists consider evolution more a process set in motion by god, not god being a pupitear (SP?). But even that doesn't quite acuratly compare to your statment. In either defanitions, god is not replacing evolution. Just being the creator of it or being a part of it himself. We know man came about by the evolutionary process. However it isn't realy fair to say definate yes or no to a supernatural diety actualy existing or any influance he has on the physical world if any at all.

If we are talking about physical events happening, like the global flood etc.. then we can work to prove or disprove them using the sceintific method to find out. However science can only ever test what is physical. Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that theism is correct by default. I'm saying that there is no point in arguing how correct theism OR atheism is because they cannot be scientificly proved either way!

 

[Aught3]

As has been said in the USA at the moment theistic evolution is the lesser of two evils. Evolution groups will embrace theistic evolutionists because of the political advantage of not getting rid of god. This doesn't change the fact that science doesn't need god, the most I can accept from someone is that there is a god but he doesn't actually do anything.

 

[Josan]

TAA was talking about the second type of atheistic evolution and you were talking about the second

Small but important typo there I belive, Nightmare is talking about the first type I think.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If your beliefe in God balances in the edges of science, it won't take long until it will be pushed over. You can believe in science and believe in God with out them being incompatible, but if you believe God in science (eg. Evolution is truth but God did it or else it couldn't have come by the way it is) you are just waiting to lose the leg in which you base your faith on. Keap them seperate. Altough truth be told if you don't relate God with something in reality, you are not far of to let it go as fable.

 

[Allah]

You cannot be a biblical/quranical literalist and believe in evolution. They ARE exclusive in that sense. However, theistic evolutionism IS compatible with religious moderates, who only take the sane parts of their holy books seriously. This introduces more problems but that's not the issue here.

 

[GoodKat]

It's in line with current evidence, but not with science. Apart from being irrational, I don't see it presenting a problem any time soon....

 

[buzzausa]

I don't see a big problem with it.

You rationally believe in evolution because with so much overwhelming evidence for it you have no choice, but you also feel that it all was started by some higher power. You can't actually prove it to anybody but that's how you feel and nobody can prove you wrong in turn. I can live with that. Nothing bad about it

So long as you realize that personal beliefs and scientific facts don't mix, and you keep 'em separated..I think you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[theatheistguy]

Tackled this in a video a while back, thought I'd share it here.

Basic argument is as followed:
Christianity is the worship of a god and his human form Yeshua.
He came to rid the world of sin.
Sin came into the world with the fall of man.
No literal creation (accepting evolution and reason), means no Adam and Eve, means no fall from grace, means no sin, means there was no reason for JC to die....so why worship him (other than fear of being squished).