Post Reply
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Problems for Theistic Evolution?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 2:32PM #11
d_p_m
Posts: 9,573

I have never heard a pagan priest or priestess express any doubts about the essential correctness of the Theory of Evolution.


One friend of mine, a priestess who happens to be a molecular biologist, simply rolls her eyes and looks disgusted whenever I mention some of the inane things creationists (or militant vegetarians who claim humans are not omnivores) have said.


When talking about science, science trumps religious doctrine.


I think it doesn't bother us because we know that our myths are talking about spiritual truths, not historical/scientific truths.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"One need only watch a few minutes of any Orphan Black episode to see why Tatiana Maslany deserves to win every acting award available."

    —Mark Rozeman, http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/07/18-first-time-emmy-nominees-wed-like-to-see.html?a=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 2:29AM #12
teilhard
Posts: 49,929

Yes ... A "Question" wrongly asked will never yield a Corrrect "Answer" ... So making the proper DISTINCTION here between "Science" and "Religion" is of The FIRST Order ..


Apr 16, 2012 -- 2:32PM, d_p_m wrote:


I have never heard a pagan priest or priestess express any doubts about the essential correctness of the Theory of Evolution.


One friend of mine, a priestess who happens to be a molecular biologist, simply rolls her eyes and looks disgusted whenever I mention some of the inane things creationists (or militant vegetarians who claim humans are not omnivores) have said.


When talking about science, science trumps religious doctrine.


I think it doesn't bother us because we know that our myths are talking about spiritual truths, not historical/scientific truths.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 10:48AM #13
upsala81
Posts: 2,336

This thread just emphasizes that the real problem that we address on this board are forms of creationism that try to rewrite science by replacing it with misinterpretations of the Bible.



It all begins and ends with a strident and unswerving insistence that the Bible must be read through a fundamentalist lens.  If that is not required, we could have some very inspiring discussions that would not devolve into nastiness.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 4:47PM #14
Btheist
Posts: 9

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:48AM, upsala81 wrote:


This thread just emphasizes that the real problem that we address on this board are forms of creationism that try to rewrite science by replacing it with misinterpretations of the Bible.



It all begins and ends with a strident and unswerving insistence that the Bible must be read through a fundamentalist lens.  If that is not required, we could have some very inspiring discussions that would not devolve into nastiness.




upsala81,


That's my feeling entirely. I'm glad to have such considerate responses to this thread :)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 5:57PM #15
Oncomintrain
Posts: 2,953

I guess maybe the broad issue is that theism in the real world is almost never generalized, abstract theism, but rather theism set within any number of specific theologies, which posit particular histories, mythologies, and characteristics for God(s).


While Theism in the abstract may not have many points of tension with the Theory of Evolution, many specific theistic religions do. And frankly, belief in God as an abstraction doesn't count for much, since that could mean just about anything.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 1:48AM #16
Btheist
Posts: 9

Apr 17, 2012 -- 5:57PM, Oncomintrain wrote:


I guess maybe the broad issue is that theism in the real world is almost never generalized, abstract theism, but rather theism set within any number of specific theologies, which posit particular histories, mythologies, and characteristics for God(s).


While Theism in the abstract may not have many points of tension with the Theory of Evolution, many specific theistic religions do. And frankly, belief in God as an abstraction doesn't count for much, since that could mean just about anything.




Oncomintrain,


That may be true for some specific theologies, though I have some specific beliefs about the nature of God (I'm a panentheist, and believe that God is a person that loves the good and the true) but I still don't think my specific conception of God conflicts with evolution. I actually think that God also evolves, but that's a whole nother thread...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 8:56AM #17
Oncomintrain
Posts: 2,953

Apr 18, 2012 -- 1:48AM, Btheist wrote:


Oncomintrain,


That may be true for some specific theologies, though I have some specific beliefs about the nature of God (I'm a panentheist, and believe that God is a person that loves the good and the true) but I still don't think my specific conception of God conflicts with evolution. I actually think that God also evolves, but that's a whole nother thread...




I think that sort of illustrated my point. It isn't fruitful to ask whether Theism is in tension with the ToE, because Theism can mean nearly anything. It is only fruitful to ask whether a PARTICULAR theism is in tension with the ToE. Without knowing a great deal more about the specifics of your beliefs, it would be difficult for anyone else to comment on what tensions might or might not exist between them and science. As it is, you're the only one in a position to judge that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 2:03PM #18
upsala81
Posts: 2,336

I think that sort of illustrated my point. It isn't fruitful to ask whether Theism is in tension with the ToE, because Theism can mean nearly anything. It is only fruitful to ask whether a PARTICULAR theism is in tension with the ToE. Without knowing a great deal more about the specifics of your beliefs, it would be difficult for anyone else to comment on what tensions might or might not exist between them and science. As it is, you're the only one in a position to judge that.




This is very true.  But I would wager that the the common thread in any tension between the TOE and a particular Thieism is the misguided idea that a sacred text is somehow necessarily scientifically accurate.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 2:23PM #19
d_p_m
Posts: 9,573

Apr 18, 2012 -- 2:03PM, upsala81 wrote:


This is very true.  But I would wager that the the common thread in any tension between the TOE and a particular Thieism is the misguided idea that a sacred text is somehow necessarily scientifically accurate.




Ummm... you're still thinking in terms of common mainstream religions. Some relitigions do not have 'sacred texts' in the sense you are thinking of them. But even without sacred texts I'm sure people will find a way to lock into some really strange ideas.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"One need only watch a few minutes of any Orphan Black episode to see why Tatiana Maslany deserves to win every acting award available."

    —Mark Rozeman, http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/07/18-first-time-emmy-nominees-wed-like-to-see.html?a=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 2:28PM #20
upsala81
Posts: 2,336

Yes, sacred texts might be limiting.  Perhaps include- defining beliefs- oral and written mythologies and so on.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook