Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Do christians get offended by the "darwin/evolution" fish-shaped car stickers?

131 replies

allgonebellyup · 26/04/2008 14:19

Hope not, my sis got me one thats now stuck to my car! (i am always going on about how i dont believe god or anyone made the world, it has been scientifically proven that the evolution theory is the one that holds the most weight)

OP posts:
InLoveWithSweenyTodd · 05/05/2008 20:32

oh dear, excuse the spelling...

Heathcliffscathy · 05/05/2008 20:36

i'd go for the peace sign and the yoda emblem and I attend a christian church and believe in the teachings of christ

as well as the message at the core of all world religions. and humanism.

so neh.

Heathcliffscathy · 05/05/2008 20:38

eyesofapanda what a very sensible post.

cory · 11/05/2008 16:19

Me, I'm a Christian who believes that God created the world by means of Darwinian evolution. Why shouldn't He be allowed to use any method of creation that pleased Him- that is His privilege.

So can I have an ichthys and a Darwinian fish intertwined, maybe nuzzling each other gently? Wouldn't suggest mating, though since we are talking the creation of life...

Personally, I have never found reasoning to be of any value whatsoever when it comes to arriving at or justifying faith. But it's great when you want to appreciate the wonders of creation or work out what part you should be playing in it.

Greyriverside · 12/05/2008 10:20

InLoveWithSweenyTodd, The only reason for looking for proof of a god in the first place is that you begin by believing in him and then look for some justification. That's where the unreason begins. I don't care how they dress it up. I can play with words too, but to start from a belief in god is illogical and there is no logical path to belief.

Even if one made a case for a supernatural being that created the universe it could equally well be the spaghetti monster or zeus. It doesn't begin to prove that allah or the three from the christian bible exist.

There are any number of christians saying "well logically there must be something that created the universe. That proves that my god exists and has a morbid interest in my sez life and the exact way I keep my hair"

(most religions have a lot to say about headgear and facial hair - it's apparently vital to salvation and you can be excommunicated or stoned to death for getting it wrong)

Greyriverside · 12/05/2008 10:55

This is off the top of my head so there may be better ways of putting it

First Way: The Argument From Motion

St. Thomas Aquinas concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:

  1. Nothing can move itself.
  2. If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
  3. This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

The 'first mover' only suggests a first mover. It doesn't describe it. Therefore it only suggests the existence of a 'flobble' (a term I just invented). It says nothing about it being a sentient being and nothing about it's preferences for human hair styles (see above). There are several other descriptions of the universe that don't require a first mover and I'm not happy with any of them, but not knowing a reason doesn't in itself justify inventing one
----------------

Second Way: Causation Of Existence

Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:

  1. There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
  2. Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
  3. There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
  4. Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

This is a restating of the first argument. He must have wanted to pad his lecture out. To answer them individually: 1) yes we have observed this. 2) This may be true, but isn't proven. (perhaps time is circular). In any case you now have to explain the existence of the Flobble which by Thomas' argument can not have created itself (See Occams Razor) 3) Perhaps the universe is infinite in which case this statement is false. It's certainly not proof of anything in itself 4) on this shaky start he suddenly deduces that it must be the christian god. Need we say more?

----------------

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects

This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God.

  1. Contingent beings are caused.
  2. Not every being can be contingent.
  3. There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
  4. This necessary being is God.

A restatement of the first two really. He did like to waffle on

----------------

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection

St. Thomas formulated this Way from an observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

This is poetry not logic so it's hard to know how to respond to it. Beauty may be said to be in the eye of the beholder. A statue of a beautiful woman would probably not be seen as such by a small lizard or vice versa. Therefore he is basing the existence of god on his own preferences for art

----------------

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design

Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.
A more complete explanation of St. Thomas' Fifth Way about God as Intelligent Designer can be seen on my web page dedicated

Evolution already took care of this one. However I'd add that in fact the so called 'intelligent designer' made so many mistakes that this is an argument for the other side

Greyriverside · 12/05/2008 11:10

The bold bits are mine. The rest I googled and pasted to save time. If anyone wants to find a more official source we can look at that.

InLoveWithSweeneyTodd · 12/05/2008 13:33

greyriver, I am aware of the objections to Aquinas ways. My point was that religion cannot be accused of "not reasoning" just because it's religion. I said this because you said faith was a conclusion people arrive at without reasoning. You can say their reasoning is faulty in your opinion, but there can be as much reasoning as non-religious people put in other aspects in life. Reason is not the domain of the non-religious.

InLoveWithSweeneyTodd · 12/05/2008 13:59

and how the heck did we manage to get from car stickers to discuss Aquinas five ways???
I can recommend Francis Collins "The Language of God". It is a good book, and you may disagree with some points BUT it is written by a scientist. I always think the religious scientists get very little publicity.
At some point, when talking about how the Big Bang theory brought scientist closer to the concept of God, Collins quotes another astronomer (Jastrow?) saying that the Big Bang was like a bad dream for scientists: they had painstakingly climbed a mountain of ignorance and are about to conquer the highest summit, and as they climb over the final rock they are greeted by a group of theologists who had been sitting there for centuries. This is anecdotal of course, but I found it amusing.

ianisace1 · 04/03/2015 12:39

I fail to see how anyone can be a Christian and believe in Evolution.

If we evolved from single cell organisms at what point did we evolve an "immortal soul" ? And Why ?

Do christians get offended by the "darwin/evolution" fish-shaped car stickers?
ianisace1 · 04/03/2015 12:40

By the way you can buy these at www.darwinUK.com

MajesticWhine · 04/03/2015 12:50

ianisace1 I don't know any Christians who don't believe in evolution, and I know a lot of Christians (I am not one btw). With regard to the immortal soul, perhaps they simply have faith and accept that they can't know the answers to everything. Perhaps they are happy to follow the teachings of Christ and are not too bothered about having an explanation for the immortal soul business.

madhairday · 04/03/2015 16:18

zombie thread.

madhairday · 04/03/2015 16:21

But OK, it's interesting :)

I have no problem with evolution and I'm a Christian. The fishy stickers make me laugh. I don't have a Christian fish on my car because I'm a good driver Grin

As for the immortal soul - there's no such thing. The Bible says that God's gift to those who choose it is life eternal, but those who don't choose it don't have life eternal. Hence no universal immortality even if Augustine said there was

pineappleshortbread · 04/03/2015 17:34

I hate to burst a bubble but the fish was an ancient pagan symbol for fertility and female sexuality which was adopted by christians. The fish symbol and symbolism has links to ancient greece the celts and egyptians. It was originally pagan.

thegreenheartofmanyroundabouts · 05/03/2015 12:51

Generally the 'pagans got there first' arguments are a bit light on peer reviewed research but it's a while since I went round this loop with 'The DaVinci Code' and Mithras and the like.

The fish symbol comes from Jesus' comments about his disciples being fishers of men (Matthew 4:19) as well as having meaning in the original greek.

Wikipedia says:

????? (Ichthus) is an acronym/acrostic for "?????? ???????, ???? ????, ?????", (I?sous Christos, Theou Yios, S?t?r), which translates into English as "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour".

bigbluestars · 05/03/2015 14:26

I gave one to my niece - my sister ( her mother) gets very annoyed by it. Grin

ordinandymum · 05/03/2015 22:29

I don't, I believe in Jesus and Darwin. Smile

ordinandymum · 05/03/2015 22:30

No fish on our car either.

bigbluestars · 05/03/2015 22:33

I didn't kmow Darwin was a prophet.

ordinandymum · 05/03/2015 22:37

He's in the apocrypha Wink

ianisace1 · 10/03/2015 12:15

What is faith if not blind acceptance of whatever creed you have been brought up in ? Isn't it stange how Christians tend to have children who are Christian and Muslims have children who are Muslim ? Scientific truths are universal and if someone can find a fault with a theory scientists won't just ignore it they will try to develope a new theory.

sashh · 17/03/2015 06:36

its completely talking the piss out of a long establised christian symbol as cake said.

Is it though?

If you wanted to show you are a Christian but not a creationist what symbol would you use? The Darwin symbol looks perfect to me.

Maybe Christians who are not creationists should adopt it?

DoctorDonnaNoble · 17/03/2015 06:42

But there are many Christians who accept evolution, like me, so no problem here whatsoever. I even did a project on dinosaurs at Catholic primary school.
In fact, I'd say most Christians (certainly in the UK) are 'believers' in evolution.

ianisace1 · 20/03/2015 15:43

I don't think the fact that most christians accept evolution means that Christianity and Evolution are compatible it just means Christians have had to accept Evolution even though it contradicts everything written in the Bible about the origin of life. At least Creationists are consistant in their views.