I find the whole debate ridiculous...

yellowsummers · 05-27-2007, 09:13 AM

Well, first off, I think complete trust of the Bible doesn't make sense. It's not like God arranged the ink on the paper to tell us his exact recollections of the creation. It was something written by a human. It's very old. My family is Christian and thinks of it as a myth, metaphor, a cultural thing.

Beyond that, I've never even seen the conflict between evolution and religion. Most religious people believe that clouds, for example, are suspended particles of condensation. They also believe that these clouds are a part of God's creation. There is a scientific explanation, and believing in it doesn't make you any less religious. As a child in Sunday School, I was taught that God made plants grow and wounds heal. I know (and knew then, thanks to Bill Nye) that there are very apparent scientific explanation for how plants grow and wounds heal. But the two explanations aren't contradictory to me. Just because our origin is bigger and harder to see shouldn't turn it into a black-and-white debate. The world is an intricate web, and everything has a provable scientific basis- but that doesn't mean it's just a big ol' rock covered in carefully arranged chemicals. We know that our emotions are caused by electrical impulses, hormones and pheromones, but we still view ourselves as conscious, feeling humans. Why, then, must the creationism debate be so split?

My pastor put science and religious teachings in terms of "how" and "why".

Why can't people just view God as the creator of science? I think that denouncing evolution and similar theories on the basis that they contradict religion shows ignorance and overly simplified thinking.

Og · 05-27-2007, 09:24 AM

Particularly, for christians, this is problematic because seeing the original sin and stories found in the beginning of genesis as metaphor makes the act of jesus sacrificing himself on the cross into a metaphorical act (whether it was real or not). It makes his identity with the divine (son of god) into a metaphorical state of mind.

The creeds that christians profess (nicean creed and apostle's cread and such) express literal belief in the divinity of jesus and the stories expressed in the book.

In order for the act to be a literal salvation from sin in a supernatural but REAL sense, the original act needs to be real as well. If you discard the original sin idea then the metaphor becomes directly applicable to life and you see jesus' teachings being identical to the buddha's.. That is that everyone is the son of god... You are christ.

This would be the version of christianity that would be wonderfully applicable today, but it would get rid of the bearded white man in the sky demanding 10% of your salary to the church coffers. They would actually have to give a positive psychological reason to gather instead of a negative threat of punishment and psychological abuse (guilt/sin etc) to the congregation. It's easier to be destructive.

So they grasp to creationism. The reasons for rejecting evolution are fabricated in order to prevent the need for a major reconfiguration of beliefs. I suggest we just stop being christian and use buddhism as a guide for life. They've taken the identical message that is expressed by jesus and intellectually interpreted it in terms of what it means for the individual. The buddhists UNDERSTAND what a metaphor is. Christianity is too tainted (even though it can have some good things to say). Buddhism is really where its at.

At the center of the buddhist teachings is the scientific method. There are MANY sects of buddhism. These sects don't exist because of dissagreements, the sects exists because there are different people in the world with different paths... None of them are exclusive to one another or in contradiction to one another.

Reincarnation may be a bunch of hogwash, but that doesn't bother the Buddhist much at all.

Armel P · 05-29-2007, 12:54 PM

ys: You're finding reasons to preserve the idea of a god. The most important thing is that there is no reason to vest belief in a god. If you do, you are being illogical. Period.

Og · 05-29-2007, 01:30 PM

I'd ask if you think it's important to preserve the idea of the crew of the starship enterprise in "Star Trek: The Next Generation?"

In a very real sense, the crew were gods and their enemies were demons. Counselor Troi represented femininity and emotion to the point that she could sense emotions. Commander Riker was the masculine male side of the human psyche with his beard and large stature and his relationship to the female object. Warf was a warrior poet from a species of warriors. Geordi was a symbol of man and technology integrating to the point that he saw the entire world through technology (his visor). Data was the androgynous tin man through which complex human emotions like love and friendship could be visualized due to his lack of emotion.

Each one of these people was a symbol of elements of the human psyche and their enemies were distillations of human problems.

I'm not "finding reasons" to preserve the idea of God. I'm saying that the metaphor of god speaks to powers within our own psyche in the same way that the crew of the enterprise were metaphors for elements of our own psyche.

I agree that it is illogical to vest belief in a god. I do not think that notions of gods are useless. I think they are a crucial element of relating to the human experience. Metaphors are often the only way that we can effectively explore the human experience.

**SithLord** · 05-29-2007, 01:49 PM

Well first of all am I the only one that found Troi to be quite the hottie in her tight outfit?

And Geordi pretty much wore a womans hair piece holder thing-a-ma-bob as a "visor" which I always thought was funny.

But Og, I'm confused. Are you Atheist or Agnostic?

Og · 05-29-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Are you Atheist or Agnostic?

About what?

yellowsummers · 05-29-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armel P

ys: You're finding reasons to preserve the idea of a god. The most important thing is that there is no reason to vest belief in a god. If you do, you are being illogical. Period.

The entire point of my post, Armel, is that it's possible to believe in evolution and God at the same time.

Armel P · 05-29-2007, 05:57 PM

But that is not true. Evolution has evidence to support it. God is just an invented puzzle piece that fits loosely and meaninglessly into the hole which is unacquired knowledge. It is just as possible to believe in god that will only let you into heaven if you kill you entire family. It is just as possible to believe in a god that hates you. Et cetera. There is no evidence to support belief in any single one of the infinite possible forms of what would be termed a god. But evolution by natural selection can show without a doubt that life developed from other forms of life which ultimately developed from non-life.

yellowsummers · 05-29-2007, 06:04 PM

That's the thing- evolution, and science in general, are aspects of our world that depend on provable facts. What I don't understand is why people insist on viewing god/religion this way. To me, they're completely different types of knowledge/belief. Looking to science to prove that god exists, or looking to religion to explain science, is like trying to listen to a picture.

Romulus · 05-29-2007, 06:11 PM

I have to agree that the debate is rediculous. Although i dont agree that evolution should be taught without creation at its side in equality.
But the debate is rediculous because it has nothing to do with a relationship with God. If we could only know cool facts about God but we couldnt know him personally it would do us absolutely no good Christianity is about the relationship. Of course i do think there are important things in the creation story that parrelels with the rest of the Bible but the debate isnt really gonna help anyone that i can see.