'She believes we're decended from apes!'

[Bumperlicioso]

Said with incredulous laughter by a very religious acquaintance. Does religion preclude a belief in evolution? Apparently there is nothing to support it according to same acquaintance.

[bruxeur]

That's some stunning inbreeding there, hsurp - if after more than 4000 years of brotherfucking we're the Hapsburg lip'd haemophiliac softheaded droolers in the locked cellar, what kind of ubermenschen must ol' A&E have been?

Apart from make-believe, of course.

(replace with "metaphorical" if you want to be kind)

[noid]

That's an interesting viewpoint hsurp. Genesis is one of my favourite books of the bible but I have always read it as allegory - with the period in the garden of eden as childhood, and the gaining knowledge as emergence of sexuality, and the expulsion from eden as the reality of adult life and responsibility, need to work etc. And the same for the creation story - I read that as the story of life over eras rather than days. But no-one can prove anything, that's the wonderful thing about faith :)

[CoteDAzur]

The problem with "came from Adam & Eve, then evolved" is that we are supposedly created in the image of God himself, so how and why would we evolve/change?

[PfftTheMagicDragon]

so what about carbon dating, hsurp?

[hsurp]

I believe we all came from Adam and Eve. However, it IS hard to explain certain old, historical skulls compared with skulls today. I think we 1st came from Adam & Eve and evolved as years go by. That's what makes sense to me.

[noid]

grimma I meant that of the Gospels, John makes the most sense to me. What I interpret it to mean was that in the beginning was the will or intention or force of something, rather than a void. And then there was the universe. I don't understand how anything can exist but I'm sure that I do, so choosing the "we came from something axiom" rather than "we came from nothing" doesn't seem illocical to me. I mean, unless you're a 7-day creationist you have to admit that creation is pretty mind-blowing, faith or no faith. I think the only reason 7-day creationists can come up with glib, easy answers to the big questions is because a literal interpretation of the bible gives one a licence not to think.

[noid]

himalaya I believe strongly that it is not provable. This doesn't worry me because I am a scientist and I have no problems with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

Supported or unsupported by observation is an interesting question but I'm sure the answer depends on who or what is doing the observing :o

[GrimmaTheNome]

Got to go...holiday tomorrow, boat on Caledonian Canal. If you don't hear from me again assume I've been devoured by the Loch Ness Monster.

[Himalaya]

noid - but in your logical train of thought shouldn't you loop back, not just follow the steps in one direction to get from science to the bible without tripping up on in consistency - I mean once you choose the liberal Christian version of god shouldn't you go back round the loop and ask if it is provable or disprovable? Or at least supported or unsupported by observation?

[GrimmaTheNome]

Noid - you know, if I'd fallen in with your sort rather than the CU (after a pleasant nonconformist start) I might have taken a different track.

What I really was askign though was about 'think in the beginning was the Word.Then the Big Bang' - its one of those things that I hear said and am never quite sure what people mean (probably no one answer!). Obv I know John 1

[noid]

grimma I believe in science. I believe that the axiom "there is a god" or "there is not a god" is not provable from our own observations. I choose the axiom "there is a god" alongside my scientific beliefs. I choose the liberal anglican version of "god". I believe that the bible is a mixture of history and allegory. I believe that treating other people the way you'd like to be treated is a pretty good modus vivendi, and the teachings attributed to Jesus make a lot of sense. I believe that the old testament rules on shellfish, hairstyles and homosexuality don't.

Is that ok?

At university I was shunned by the capital C Christians who smiled a lot and befriended foreign students. I got together with some likeminded theists, atheists and agnostics and we formed our own discussion groups and ecumenical society.

[VictorianIce]

Oops, I didn't mean that to be bold. Perhaps it's more evidence of my disruptivenesstivity. If I was one of my own pupils I'd have sent myself out by now.

Even if I have been a D.I. (Disruptive Influence, not a Detective Inspector), what I like doing is asking people questions about things that they think. I like doing that because it gives me a better understanding of what they think and a better understanding (because of my reactions to their answers) of what/why/how I think.

Noid, I was about to ask a similar question to the one Grimma just asked - can you expand on your understanding of that? I'm probably just an awkward old bugger and/or not understanding something, but to me that sounds too conveniently simple as an explanation.

[GrimmaTheNome]

noid - that sounds all well and good but what does it actually mean to you?

[GrimmaTheNome]

(I didn't say the Disruptive Influences were a bad thing, mind )

[noid]

I'm a Christian and think in the beginning was the Word. Then the Big Bang. Not all of us are science deniers.

[VictorianIce]

wonders if she's been a disruptive influence

[onagar]

or it got overrun by disruptive influences.

Okay, just let me know which one and I'll stay away :o

[GrimmaTheNome]

Yeah, but it'd have about 4 posts on it before either the discussion petered out or it got overrun by disruptive influences.

[AMumInScotland]

Grimma - we need a thread for very liberal Christians and whatever-the-equivalent atheists to chat about how the fundamentalists in both camps make our lives difficult

[GrimmaTheNome]

AMIS - me too, from the other perspective.

[onagar]

Oh I know that you know. I think you should become a missionary to those who most need to hear the word of god. (other Christians) :)

[AMumInScotland]

I'm thoroughly aware of the other kind, not least because most of them don't believe I'm a Christian

The complicated thing with threads like this, for me, is that I have to divide my time between disagreeing with some of the things which atheists say, and disagreeing with some of the stuff that other Christians say.

[onagar]

It can work for a minimalist god. If someone wants to say something like "I feel there is something up there and this makes me want to be nice to people" there is nothing to argue with and no motive to do so.

As soon as the religious person starts being specific though it all falls apart. A conversation might go like this:


Believer: "My faith makes me feel there is something up there and this makes me want to be nice to people"
Atheist : "That's nice. I'm happy for you"

So far so good.

Believer: "btw, I must insist on not having that gay person near me because my religion tells me they are wrong. Also schools must tell all children - mine and yours that my religion is right. I shall also need to have a seat in the lords and an exemption from paying taxes.
Atheist : "Hold on. Aren't those demands a bit specific for a feeling to convey?
Believer: "My church tells me these things are right and my faith tells me that my church is right"
Atheist : "How does your church know these things are right?"
Believer: "They have God's word in the bible"
Atheist : "So your faith tells you that the bible is right?. What about all the murders and atrocities in the bible?. The awful things God tells people to do"
Believer: "Oh not those. That is the Old Testament. None of that is true! You are being hateful even mentioning those. I must see if we can get mentioning those lumped in with racism so we can have you arrested for it"
Atheist : "But.... how do you know the New Testament is true and that Jesus is the son of God"
Believer: "It says so in the Old Testament. It prophecies that God (the OT god) will send his son etc. That is evidence that it's true"
Atheist : "So you are now saying that the OT is God's word?
Believer: "Yes, except for all the bits that contradict me. Those are false"



Of course some Christians just do the first part, but I'm having trouble believing that those Christians are unaware of the other kind.

[onagar]

Tuffie, you may be gentle and kind, but do you still carry the book that tells you all those other things I mentioned in my post? I didn't make it up - your fellow Christians did. Perhaps your disappointment should be directed at them.

[AMumInScotland]

I think the difficulty is that faith cannot be talked about in terms of evidence and proof, so repeated demands to provide evidence sound deliberately provocative. I can see that the inability of religion to provide any proof is irritating, and that makes a logical scientific discussion of it impossible, but when it comes down to it people believe in God for reasons which are solely about personal experience and cannot be proved or falsified. In science, those sorts of issues would just be categorised as "pointless conjecture", like questions of what is outside the universe, you can make any guesses you like but they can't be properly debated or weighed up because there is nothing to work with.

But that doesn't mean that religious people don't apply logic to at least some areas of their religion, it's just the central point (does God exist, if so how should I respond) which can't be dealt with that way.

For some believers at least, the rest of it can be considered in logical terms.