Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Re: Evolution

    Originally posted by Medusa View Post
    If someone says that science (evolution for example) is not a concern to their religion...I think this:
    I have a belief system. It's based on XYZ. Science (and the proovable explanation of the things around me) is no concern to my religion. I also believe my religion to be true. How can you have a religion and not base it on true stuff? Does this make sense? I'm sure it doesn't. I'm just really iffy on somone's actual belief in the reality of their religion if they can't even reconcile reality (and science) into it.
    Well...the evolutionary biologist and all-around guru of biology, Steven Jay Gould has this idea called NOM (which stands for non-overlapping magesteria) NOM is essentially the idea that religion and science are two different ways of looking at the world and they answer fundamentally different questions in at their most basic level and that their realms (magesteria) do not overlap.

    I've written about my opinion of this on my blog, which goes something like this: do overlap in the perception of individual issues by individuals (which, as a pragmatist, is where it counts). I think (and I've posted this here before) that the reality of science looks more like this...




    Sorry. Made no sense. Question time.
    Thal do you reconcile your scientific knowledge with your religion? As in do you say yeah this science stuff over here makes sense and fits into my religious beleifs. Or is it more like there is this science stuff. But that has nothing to do with what I actually spiritually believe. Both are different. One is fact and the other is....not.

    Help a sick girl out here.
    lol, I think it makes plenty of sense.

    I don't have any religious beliefs that are unscientific, in the sense that they are disproven. I do, however, have plenty of religious ideas that can't be answered by science...at least not by the sorts of technology and understanding of science that we have today, at this moment. I also have some religious ideas that overlap (in the *fuck* zone), that are based in scientific ideas, but might have a religious idea-based "engine" so to say...and some areas where I am willing to suspend disbelief simply because, while I am uncertain/doubtful of the existence of a metaphysical cause, the power of the mind is pretty good. What I do NOT ever ever ever ever do though, is replace scientific ideas with religious ones or include religious ideas in an official explanation of a scientific idea (for example, while I might PERSONALLY, as a pantheist, believe that the Universe is Divine, I would never teach Intelligent Design as a component of evolution...and indeed, I think the Divinity of the Universe has absolutely nothing to do with evolution...but I digress, I'm just trying to illustrate).

    Think about it this way...lots of things are not scientific facts. Beauty, love, peace, freedom, liberty, justice, etc... All those ideas that make us human are "religious" (not in the meanin of being of a religion, but by virtue of being part of that NOM.
    Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
    sigpic

    Comment


      #47
      Re: Evolution

      Originally posted by JamesByrne View Post
      Creationism is not a part of catholicism and I did make the point a few posts ago that a priest pioneered the big bang theory and the expansion of the universe theory.





      Dawkins is not an archeologist he cant comment on fossil evidence. There are plenty of alternate theories for everything all disciplines are diverse.


      Dawkins is not qualified to discuss theology like the creation because he has no Qualifications. If he discusses archaeology or theology hes going outside his discipline and no academic will do that. That he does is an embarassment to his profession.




      Dawkins opinions are not 'scientific law'. Hes a nutter who writes journo style books that are not peer reviewed and do not have proper citations to allow you to research what he writes... and he preaches at people like jeremy kyle talking to a chav or Jerry springer talking to a jersey shore type. If he was what he pretends to be he wouldnt be discussing anything without a qualification in theology and all his books would be published by the university press so they could be properly assessed by his peers and not just appealing to the lowest common denominator. No offense intended but when an academic does what he does, thats what he has in mind.
      Not really my point. (Believe me, I'm educated about catholicism if anyone ever was.) If there are devout catholic scientists I see no reason why there can't be evangelical scientists. I'm sure there are and I'm sure not all of them are uneducated and stupid (even if a larger proportion of them are). I mean, I doubt you'd find many religious evangelicals in biology or physics... but, uh, chemistry, maybe? My point was merely that you can't make a 100% sweeping generalization like "creationists are uneducated" even if it's more likely to be true.

      Dawkins can't comment on fossil evidence pertaining to his own theories because he's not an archeologist? That's silly. If that was the attitude scientists had, nothing would ever get done, because nobody would be fully qualified to write about a pervasive concept like evolution. Nobody has a degree in everything, that doesn't mean you can't discuss it, especially if it does pertain directly to your research! Should scientists have to have a degree in journalism before they can publish in scientific journals, too?

      Honestly, I don't disagree that he's probably less qualified to discuss theology... but is he? I mean, what would you consider capital-Q Qualified in religion? Do you have to be a priest? Or raised in a faith? Or simply knowledgeable about it? Theology is not like science, so there are no real rules for this. This is a serious question. What do you consider qualified?

      His opinions are not scientific law, but evolution is... (I'm honestly still not sure if you're trying to say something, in which case I still am not sure which side you're even on, or just slagging on Dawkins. In which case, meh.)
      Last edited by Gallifrey; 18 Jul 2012, 05:35.

      Comment


        #48
        Re: Evolution

        Originally posted by Zephyranth View Post
        I definitely see what you mean... I guess everyone has a different level of curiosity when it comes to the questions they ask and the answers they want... I really admire people who have the ability to just accept the world around them as it is and not expect it to reveal all it's secrets to them. I can be a little bit of a skeptic at times, though, so I generally need to have a way to make things work.
        I suppose that it depends on what secrets you are looking to have revealed. Scientific specifics of the precise mechanisms that brought life to where it is today (did the dinosaurs evolve into birds?) are passing curiosity or an intellectual hobby for most, while for others, it is a career. But it is not knowledge that one needs to live their daily life.

        Knowledge of how the natural world functions, however is necessary for medicine, the growing of food, making of alcohol, etc. Understanding of combustion is needed to enable us to have modern automobiles and knowledge of aerodynamics is needed for commercial air travel. For every modern convenience or necessity that we enjoy today, somebody with curiosity about how the secrets of the world took the time to figure it out and pioneer the necessary field.

        I have a great respect for those people who study paleontology and who work out the evolution of life. It simply isn't a specific part of my spiritual practice; those mechanisms are simply the divinely ordered mechanisms for the development of life, and there are people who have made study of those mechanisms a career choice. I am not one of them; my gifts and interests are in other fields.

        Originally posted by Zephyranth View Post
        Thank you for your input!
        You're welcome!

        - - - Updated - - -

        Originally posted by Medusa View Post
        For example. Christians like to do the whole Creationsism and thrown out evolution. Science shmience. What's that for. We have Jesus!
        Just a comment on this: most who self identify as Christian do not do this. Fundamentalists and some Evangelical Christians do, and from what I have seen, most prominent Evangelical leaders do. Most Christians are fine with an old earth and evolution and do not hold a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. Fundamentalists are more vocal because they view evolution as a diametrically opposed doctrine.

        Most Christians aren't vocal because there's nothing to be vocal about; if you aren't opposed to evolution, then the status quo is just fine. There are fundamentalists who have enough influence that they make an effort to get creationism in some form or another into the public school system, and they are the ones that get the most press.

        Comment


          #49
          Re: Evolution

          Evolution is a favorite subject of mine. As a Biology major, I couldn't be more convinced of the soundness of the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is less well understood, but it seems likely that an early earth could have formed early self-replicating RNA molecules protected by lipid membranes, so there's no real problem with it in theory. To me, this just shows how practically anything can come into existence through random chance. It proves that we live in a chaotic universe in which virtually anything can arise from simple components. I have a similar view of the origins of the Gods.

          I think some higher power/s may have overseen Earth's development, and influenced the development of mankind, but ultimately their role in creation was minimal.
          If you want to be thought intelligent, just agree with everyone.

          Comment


            #50
            Re: Evolution

            Thanks Thal. It helped alot. I still have stuff to mill over. I'll be back!
            Satan is my spirit animal

            Comment

            Working...
            X