´óÏó´«Ã½

No.

I've had this discussion before. It might have. The problem for the human mind is that it finds the need to reconcile the very strong instinct for survival with the realization of the inevitablity of death. It also has an insatiable curiousity to find cause for observation and experience including the most abstract such as origin of self and all existance. This need can be satisfied by belief in god who is responsible for all creation. Like other primates and social animals who naturally live in packs, humans also instinctively sort themselves into a pecking order of power. The medicine man or high priest can hold a special position near or at the top of the heirarchy however, he may be challenged by those who are physically stronger should it come to a confrontation between them. Religion solves this problem too by creating armies of followers for the medicine man who will fight for them. The need is so powerful that these armies will fight each other over which medicine man has the true inside track with the almighty. The problem for modern religions is that when knowledge gained though observation and reason (science) discredits the inherited theology of the priests, they must either backpeddle and revise their own theology or lose power to a new and as yet undiscredited theology. Scientists try to create a theology which reconciles their own primitive need to satisfy this dilemma with their perpetually increasing store of factual knowledge. The best result is to create a theology which understands the disntinction between the unknown and the unknowable relegating creation to the latter. That makes the new science friendly theology unassailable. But it doesn't make it any less a pile of intellectual hooey :-)

Christianity is a revealed religion - we know it because God has told us, revealing Himself in history, first through Israel, then culminating in Jesus Christ, God made man, whose presence continues today in sacrament and the Church he established.

I suppose you could describe that as a form of evolution.

smasher, I'd describe it as the result of magic mushrooms.

John M. Allegro - The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross - a classic of 1970s liberal tosh

So... what am I to think?

It seems that whatever view we take, religion isn't for dying out any time soon.

Maybe some of the scientists on this blog could explain to a non scientist like myself why evolution should cause religion to flourish.

petermorrow, you see Freud explained it best. You have the rational mind which is the pinacle of evolution. Then you have your irrational mind which is still less evolved. It does not think, it only feels. Your rational mind is at war with your irrational mind. Your rational mind says one day your are going to die. Your irrational mind refuses to beleive it, can't accept it. So they collaborate on inventing a fantastic construction which satisfies them both. And then some kid comes and knocks your sand castle down and kicks the sand in your face to boot. At least that's what the Pope told me about this brat named Galileo.

Why doesn't religion die out? A lot of people are protecting their sand castles fiercely. They won't let any kids near them.

Peter,

I am not a scientist but I would say that religion has worked on social cohesion and group identity in those terms it has been successful. Basic religion of whatever faith teach the golden rule eg., do unto others....though personally I belive that this is a universal concept.

Well that's my tuppence worth!

DD

Do you think the view that evolution produced religion means that we must understand religious belief as being of benefit to humanity?

This statement by Jocelyn Bell really sums up my feelings on the matter:



Jocelyn Bell Burnell: One of the things that I can never answer is whether my feeling that there is a god is simply some kind of neurological pattern in my brain. I have no answer to that, I just do not know. But the evidence would lead me to think otherwise, because I’m not the only person who feels this, who has the same experiences. And I can recognise what I call god in other people as well, it’s not just in me.

I couldn't have put it any better.

At the moment my own family circle are going through a very difficult time however:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God

I can testify that, speaking as a Christian, every prayer I've prayed has been answered, though often not in the way I would have expected ( or wanted ). Atheists will probably say this is mere coincidence but I feel differently.

Science may explain a lot of things, for example why my son has a genetic conditiion and a severe learning difficulty. It doesn't explain the whys and wherefores of life and why this experience has happened (i.e, why me ?).

Hi Peter Morrow,

At times it has. I believe that this is the type of question in which we cannot give a definitive yes/no answer.

Peter Henderson

My thoughts are with you.

Regards

DD

Also not a scientist but I understand that Darwin held a religious view before he ventured his work on evolution. I don't think evolutionists today unless people like Dawkins who is willing to interview God when he meets him are keen to scrape religion as long as they can hold a higher ground that it cannot be mixed with what they call science. Earth's history from many tribes have stories even though altered in telling seem to have a common theme that witnesses to Noah's flood and first parents. The debate is really between belief in the supernatural and the natural. You either believe that God supernaturally created the universe or you don't. The bible is full of references by writers who believed that God made our creation. If they were mistaken then Christians have big problems. Scientists who exclude a God miracle have failed to show by their scientfic methods that humans evolved by chance. They cannot put God into a laboratory so when they look at the works of creation through a microscope they still deny that the complex designs and systems has any superior intelligence behind it. As far as they are concerned God will never get credit for anything. I find it perplexing to hear of vicious attacks and attempts to get scientists who believe in a creator God sacked or banned from the science class. I also think that much of the sociological observations are being used to inject personal perspectives of religion. Can I mention one important point, if there was never a first pair that disobeyed a creator God and never sinned, then there was never any need of a Saviour and the whole teaching of salvation and man's behaviour toward God and his judgement becomes meaningless. Atheistic evolution therefore strikes at the very root of the church's foundation.

"Earth's history from many tribes have stories even though altered in telling seem to have a common theme that witnesses to Noah's flood and first parents."

Not really and does not make it true in any case.

"I find it perplexing to hear of vicious attacks and attempts to get scientists who believe in a creator God sacked or banned from the science class."

I am perplexed as well! where is this happening? Have you fallen for the false propaganda of Expelled?

"Atheistic evolution therefore strikes at the very root of the church's foundation."


Evolution as such is not "atheistic" nor anything for that matter-it's a scientific explanation. In much the same way that gravity/electricity etc are not "atheistic". The last part of your post is straight out of the Ken Ham book of "logic". If that is your view, then by your criteria the Church and it's teaching are indeed "meaningless". Unless of course Genesis is an allegorical myth and not meant to be taken literally.

As you say, you don't believe that various ancient cultures speak of a first pair, a flood and may I add anything to do with a creator God and if they did you will not accept it as any indication of evidence. So this evidence is not allowed in your court room. You also dismiss Expelled as propaganda, so you like I are left to 'believe' what we draw from our various perspectives. Some time ago I looked up the Web site of Richard Dawkins and read a contribution from a very angry subscriber who was calling for the sacking of a professor in Leeds University who had supported the Creation model. This subscriber had mounted his photograph and said that he was a former student of Leeds. I was also taken aback when viewing a national T.V. programme where Richard Dawkins attacked a biology teacher with two degrees for holding a christian view as a science teacher. Claire Short M.P. on the same programme said that the lady should not be teaching in the science class. This combined attack on the lady's employment was done before a national audience. Claire Short later said that all scientists believed in evolution. The bible is made up for example history, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, doctrine, allegory, imagery etc., however, Genesis is accepted as the history of the beginnings and therefore historical. It is supported in references throughout scripture as undisputed fact. Yes, a literal Genesis is a challenge to the unbeliever who cannot accept the need for salvation which is a core artery running from Genesis to Revelation. I pray that you will ask God to reveal his truth to you in a way that man cannot do.

DD: Thanks

Yes, a literal Genesis is a challenge to the unbeliever who cannot accept the need for salvation which is a core artery running from Genesis to Revelation. I pray that you will ask God to reveal his truth to you in a way that man cannot do.

Offering: As a Christian I find the whole idea of a literal Genesis absurd. There is absiolutely no scientific evidence of a six thousand year old Earth/Universe despite many fraudulent/false claims by many Christians (including your friend from Leeds university). Have you ever wondered why so called creation science isn't taught in any reputable university (including Queens and the Ulster university) anywhere in the world ?????

A belief in a literal Genesis isn't necessary for salvation either by the way. Even Ken Ham accepts this.

From my own point of view, had I beeen presented with YECism before becoming a Christian I would probably now be an agnostic, of that i am certain. Those Christians who are trying to push young Earth creationism onto the rest of us will only damage the church in the long run. Mark my words Offering, Atheists will not be convinced by Christians who believe in a literal Genesis.

I would also remind you that many great evangelicals such as C.S. Lewis, Charles Hodge, or B.B.Warfield did not accept a literal Genesis.

I find the insistance of a literal Genesis as being necessary for salvation by so many evangelical Christians puzzling. It's definitely not sound doctine.

Hi Offering,

"As you say, you don't believe that various ancient cultures speak of a first pair, a flood and may I add anything to do with a creator God and if they did you will not accept it as any indication of evidence. So this evidence is not allowed in your court room."

Not a case of I don't believe rather I do not see any evidence. Many ancient cultures speak of a lot of things though obviously does not make it true. What is of more significance is the cultures that do not speak of a global flood like Egypt, this country had a flourishing culture at the time of this alleged flood which apparently wiped out all of humanity except for 8 people. However apparently all the people in Egypt got wiped out-these people were replaced very rapidly, spoke the same language, had the same customs and carried on as if...nothing happened!

Offering a global flood would leave (obviously) billions and billions of tonnes of evidence all of which is empirical and testable. However the only people who can find this "evidence" are people from the extremes of hardcore Christian fundamentalism. Indeed the evidence is so useless that no-one that includes you and Ken Ham don't use it! Can you assure me that the fossil fuel that you use to run your car/heat your home/church etc etc come from companies that use the global flood model? no you can't because as I said it is useless.

The person you are talking is Andy McIntosh, the thing is Offering (and you show it) is that he (and the Expelled crowd) are not teaching science rather it's religious dogma and the rest of the special pleading in your post shows that. Also note that not all Christians share your view.

In any case have a good one.

DD

As luck would have it, I just happened to catch this weeks NPR broadcast of "Speaking of Faith."



This episode had an interview with a British physicist. He's got his own screwball theory reconciling his belief in god and his belief in quarks. Totally quarky in my opinion.

Hi again DD and welcome Offering

Please note that just because you can find oil with an old earth model does not of itself actually prove the earth is old, nor does it actually disprove the earth is "young".

Finding oil could be based on observing repeating patterns of geological formations and following the pattern to predict where the oil may be. This would not directly require any judgement to be drawn on the age of the rocks in which the oil is found.

On a similar point, you often say that creationists from different religions discredit creationism by their differing perspectives. However, I wonder if what they differ on in their view of the evidence might not be dwarfed compared to what they agree on???

Peter Henderson - how do you reconcile CS Lewis' affirmation of miracles with his view on science?

Many athiests use evolution to attack people of faith but often it is just a cover. Evolution is also a red herring.

Athiests are still left with too many questions which fit well with a creator hypothesis; what was the first cause of the universe? where did matter come from? space? what is life and how did it begin? what is conscience? what happens your personality after death? why are scientific laws stable? why does the universe conspire to support human life?

Another question, isnt Dawkins breaking his university's code of conduct to belittle the religious beliefs of thousands of its students by claiming they are mentally ill for believing in God???

later guys
PB

d

Hi PB,

"Please note that just because you can find oil with an old earth model does not of itself actually prove the earth is old, nor does it actually disprove the earth is "young"."

However it is very strange that not one natural resource company uses the young earth model! and that all these companies use the "flawed" radiometric dating technique! In any case what I (and others) have attempted to show you is that science is about results but, hence the reason why people use it! creationism is that *useless* that not even Ken Ham can use the "facts" they keep going on about.

"Finding oil could be based on observing repeating patterns of geological formations and following the pattern to predict where the oil may be. This would not directly require any judgement to be drawn on the age of the rocks in which the oil is found."

Not at all PB! You see science uses the model that fossils were laid down 100's of millions of years ago-creationists say that they were put there 4500 years ago in a massive flood. Both these views make widely different predictions. The latter view is a religious one(and one only held by the more extreme elements of Protestant fundamentalism) and as "science" it is utterly useless. Not a shred of evidence! I mean it would be so easy for a millionaire like Ken Ham to go to a company like Exxon and show them creationist predictions but they never do-wonder why?

"On a similar point, you often say that creationists from different religions discredit creationism by their differing perspectives. However, I wonder if what they differ on in their view of the evidence might not be dwarfed compared to what they agree on???"

You are bringing back fond memories PB! this is the first question I asked you! Well Hindu and Biblical creationism are light years apart and you will of course never find a Hindu who is a Biblical creationist and vice-versa as they are of course religious POV's and funnily enough only held by the more extreme/fundamentalist elements within these religions. Of course the more enlightened/intelligent members of these religions have no problem with science for eg there is Francis Collins (ever hear of him?) because he and many, many others...undermine your argument if you are suggesting that this all comes down to worldviews.

"Many athiests use evolution to attack people of faith but often it is just a cover. Evolution is also a red herring."

It is those of all faiths and none who attack creationists(if that is what you are referring to as "people of faith"), the reason is that many of us(like Francis Collins) are concerned that a bunch of religious fundamentalists are trying to corrupt our youths minds in an attempt to make them as wilfully ignorant as the creationists.

Apologies for all the posts but have had some problems getting messages up!

Anyway PB, faith is immaterial in science and personally speaking I could not care less what faith(nor for that matter lack of) when it comes to science. What matters is the argument and the result. In those terms creationism has been a disaster.

To stop this turning into another 200 post slug-fest PB, why not give me the positive,scientific evidence for Biblical Creationism? I would love to know why these multi-trillion dollar natural resource companies do not use creationism? could it be because it is not science but rather a fundamentalist religious position?

You may want to look at this

PB

put aside the finding oil question and let me ask you another. How many young earth creationists would forsake Radiotherapy in a Cancer situation and rely on good ole prayer? A slim minority - the chaps who dance around with rattlesnakes probably. A sensible bunch...

The science behind the emission of radiation from a hospital therapy source is the same science that enables age radiometirc dating.

Seems to me you folks pick and choose the Science you like. Sadly, it don't work like that.

sorry for the typo. That's RADIOMETRIC.

Actually, let's go back to the OIL question.

IF YEC-ers are correct, we should be able to knock up some oil in a few thousand years.

Now it would be a long term investment punt - but why is noone seriously talking about laying up some stores - or are BP, Exxon and Shell doing just that?

this is a rhetorical question...

Hi GW,

Good to see you back!

"Now it would be a long term investment punt - but why is noone seriously talking about laying up some stores - or are BP, Exxon and Shell doing just that?"

Exactly! I have been asking PB and creationists for years for positive evidence for their position but none is ever forthcoming. What would be great is if they could name an observation that was predicted by their results-what would be great is if PB or others could name one of the multi-trillion dollar natural resource companies that use creationism. No matter what PB may think, oil research does rest solely on a (very) old earth model. To say that fossils were laid down 4500 odd years ago would give VERY different results. Creationism that silly and useless that even creationists can't use it!

Welcome back peab,

"Athiests are still left with too many questions which fit well with a creator hypothesis; what was the first cause of the universe? where did matter come from? space? what is life and how did it begin? what is conscience? what happens your personality after death? why are scientific laws stable? why does the universe conspire to support human life?"

All those questions which are unanswered to atheists are also unanswered to you. You have just relabeled 'I don't know' into 'Goddunnit'. So the atheists are curious to learn, to improve their knowledge, as they freely admit to themselves that there are things they don't understand yet. Whereas you will never out-grow your lack of knowledge as you are satisfied with the answers of primitive, bronze age, semi-literate goat herders that lived around the Eastern Mediterranean a few millenia ago. You even actively (and dishonestly) block out any knowledge presented to you on a silver late.

No wonder that the entire spectrum of posters on this blog, from hard line atheists to strong christians, denounce you.

Peter

PB

To add to Peter's points about your "questions"- being an atheist and believing that gods are man-made constructs (such as Thor, Zeus, YHWH/Elhoim, Pachamacha, Amon-Ra etc etc) does not in any reflect on the ability to answer your "points".

Indeed throughout history and especially when the Church was in control the only answer allowed was (my)GODDIDIT! Thankfully people such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kelvin etc challenged this viewpoint.

When Christians speak of God being the source and sustainer of the universe we ask, does this 'god-picture' fit with what we see around us.

Part of the Christian 'answer' is that God is personal-infinite; and one of the implications of this is that it gives a personal yet finite human race a reference point. It fits with the concept of self awareness, personality, meaning. It fits with the fact that something is here rather than not. It fits with language, love, emotion and so on. It is not however, as I have said before, a scientific answer, but then again I don't think we necessarily need to set science and religion in opposition to one another. Science and religion can, I think, happily coexist, indeed they probably should coexist.

It is my belief that the christian answer fits with so many of our why questions. It is not exhaustive, is is not scientific and while it dates from the agrarian Eastern Mediterranean, that does not mean it is without meaning.

Hello petermorrow,

"Science and religion can, I think, happily coexist, indeed they probably should coexist."

For a minority of scientists they can coexist. That minority includes some very prominent scientists, but they definitely are a minority. Science magazine (September 1999) listed peoples beliefs and scientific degrees in the US. It listed as follows:

general population: 90% believers
those who have reached their science Bachelor title: 40% believers
scientists who are leaders in their field: 10% believer

We can add one more data point not in that study: out of hundreds of science Nobel laureates, there is one believer, so less than 1%.

So the pattern, while not 100% sharp, is still very clear: science and faith usually don't go together.

greets,
Peter