Atheistic Evolution v Theistic Evolution

[SonOfTheWest]

Jesus made it clear when he was telling parables. I think there's little confusion with those parts. The concern is about the rest of the Bible; it seems as though we're simply choosing to hold on to the belief that the Bible is factually accurate for as long as we can, until scientific discoveries step in to dispel our ignorance.

I am always reminded of a bugs bunny cartoon where he constantly uses his foot to draw a line in sand and dares the cartoon figure he is addressing that he bet he wont cross this line,etc,etc. Of course, considering the amount of things we now know is not accurate in the bible compared to centuries past that people still think is true. I don't hold my breathe.

 

[LadyOfMystery]

Mod Hat On

Hi Everyone! Just a friendly reminder that this area is not for debate, if you'd like to you can use the theology areas. Have a great day and feel free to PM me or any of the supers or admins if you have any questions about the rules of CF.
Mod Hat Off

 

[razeontherock]

Saber - it appears you have not read Dave's quote of the Rabbi, post #16?

 

[sabercroft]

Saber - it appears you have not read Dave's quote of the Rabbi, post #16?

I'm not sure how accurate the rabbi's claim is, but given the furore in response to Darwin's On the Origin of Species, Genesis seems to have been taken seriously enough even in the old days.

 

[razeontherock]

Darwin is not "the old days." It is possible to see what the early Church taught, and it is not what you seem to think. All this literalism stuff is a modern invention.

 

[sabercroft]

Darwin is not "the old days." It is possible to see what the early Church taught, and it is not what you seem to think. All this literalism stuff is a modern invention.

I see. Do you know where I can go to find what the early church taught? Is there a reason that caused this fundamental shift to interpreting the Bible literally?

 

[solarwave]

Possibly. But that still leaves a central point of the issue unresolved. Namely that there ARE areas of the bible that if not literal, handidly undermine many aspects of Christian theology. And by that, the moral arguments that are attempted under that auspice.

I agree. We should do our best to figure what to believe, which includes using science to help guide us.

Jesus made it clear when he was telling parables. I think there's little confusion with those parts. The concern is about the rest of the Bible; it seems as though we're simply choosing to hold on to the belief that the Bible is factually accurate for as long as we possibly can, until scientific discoveries step in to dispel our ignorance.

Theres little confusion so I used it to compare it to a similar but more confusing area of the Bible. We should hold our beliefs with the understanding that science and general development will change how people see the world in the future. This of course isn't easy because it requires a critical examination of our beliefs and I don't claim to have done this. I would say a combination of reason, evidence and faith is needed.

 

[sabercroft]

Theres little confusion so I used it to compare it to a similar but more confusing area of the Bible. We should hold our beliefs with the understanding that science and general development will change how people see the world in the future. This of course isn't easy because it requires a critical examination of our beliefs and I don't claim to have done this. I would say a combination of reason, evidence and faith is needed.

That's a surprisingly candid reply. Having spent the last few days attempting "discussion" with another far more bigoted member of this board, I must say I find your straightforwardness a refreshing change.

 

[Mr Dave]

I'm not sure how accurate the rabbi's claim is, but given the furore in response to Darwin's On the Origin of Species, Genesis seems to have been taken seriously enough even in the old days.

That Rabbi is Lord Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Commonwealth, he is a visiting lecturer at Kings College London and has previously lectured at several other highly respected universities.

Believe me, you can trust what he says to be true.

 

[sabercroft]

That Rabbi is Lord Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Commonwealth, he is a visiting lecturer at Kings College London and has previously lectured at several other highly respected universities.

Believe me, you can trust what he says to be true.

I'd love to, except that it doesn't entirely make sense to me. If he's right, there wouldn't need to be a creation vs evolution debate at all.

 

[Mr Dave]

The Times article online comes with a clip with him talking about a few things. It's behind a paywall barrier so you'll have to make do with me trying to write down the thrust of what he says.

"Every alphabet that has consonants is written from left to right, and hebrew is written from right to left. An alphabet without consonants needs a different mentality to those with consonants. You can read greek, English etc... in a linear way with the left brain. Hebrew can only be read with the right brain. So the two different mentalities of the ancient world is born, that of Ancient Israel and that of Ancient Greece. As greek is coming into its own and is written for the left brain, the two supreme left brain activities are born, philosophy and science. The paradox of the oddest event in the history of human civilisation is that Jesus was born Jewish, lived among Jews, spoke Aramaic, wrote Hebrew, but all Christian sacred texts are written in Greek, a language which the founder of Christianity probably didn't understand. Christianity entered the world as a right brain religion that could only be accounted in left brain language."


That's pretty much what he says on that topic (it's from an interview for his new book, so they go on to discuss other topics). The point is that Jewish thought is completely different to our thought which is descended from Greek and Latin etc... So where some people in the Western world today come to Torah and see that it says that God created the world in 6 days, there was a flood etc... and say "it says this, why wouldn't read it like that." This thought process is completely foreign to the Jewish community in which these texts were written as the entire mentality is different from the very fundamentals of language.


How does this sit with you OP?

 

[secondtimearound]

It is to the theistic evolutionists that I really want to chat to in this thread.

The problem I have with theistic evolution is that there is no Biblical basis for it. The Bible describes the earth as being created in 6 days (although debate rages to this day as to what "day" actually meant in Genesis chapter 1). Genesis also states that God designed all the animals, birds, sea creatures and finally man and woman during this time. How, therefore, do the theistic evolutionists explain their beliefs? Do you just discount Genesis 1-3 entirely and put it down as mythology? In essence, how do you explain, seemingly without a Biblical basis, theistic evolution? This leads me to a secondary question which is equally important to me; doesn't this leave you open to interpret any scripture in whatever way you like? Basically, how do you determine what is myth and what is literal fact in the Bible?

Thanks.

I do not discredit Genisis 1-3 as mythology, but as allegory, not to discredit but to re-affirm. Whoever wrote these versus was obviously not there and so the message is what is important, God is the creator. I refer you to these links to help map my road to attempt to reconcile the bible and evolution:

Dialogue

Alvin Plantinga - Audio Lecture Notes [The Academy of Christian Apologetics]

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Keep it mind that apparently these things were important to early Christians apparently. Heliocentrism and atomism were heavily persecuted by the early Church.

 

[Isambard]

"Atheistic"/ "Theistic Evolution" doesn't exist. You either accept ToE or you don't. Your theological orientation has no bearing on the mechanics of ToE. Saying you believe in atheistic/theistic evolution is to confuse and confound metaphysics with biology.

 

[ebia]

"Atheistic"/ "Theistic Evolution" doesn't exist. You either accept ToE or you don't. Your theological orientation has no bearing on the mechanics of ToE. Saying you believe in atheistic/theistic evolution is to confuse and confound metaphysics with biology.

ToE is the biological process. Theistic Evolution is when you consider that within a theistic worldview. Atheistic when one considers it within an overtly naturalistic rationalist worldview.


That's not confusing biology and metaphysic, it's recognizing that the questions we all ask go beyond the mechanistic biology.

 

[Varicose Brains]

Darwin is not "the old days." It is possible to see what the early Church taught, and it is not what you seem to think. All this literalism stuff is a modern invention.

You've made reference to what the early church taught in a few of your posts. Do you know of any books I can read or sites I can check out for more information on what the early church taught?

 

[Isambard]

ToE is the biological process. Theistic Evolution is when you consider that within a theistic worldview. Atheistic when one considers it within an overtly naturalistic rationalist worldview.

That's not confusing biology and metaphysic, it's recognizing that the questions we all ask go beyond the mechanistic biology.

Are you a believer in differentiating "atheistic gravity" and "theistic gravity" as well? How about "atheistic atomic theory" and "theistic atomic theory"? etc.

 

[ebia]

You might like to read some John Polkinghorne.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

"Atheistic"/ "Theistic Evolution" doesn't exist. You either accept ToE or you don't. Your theological orientation has no bearing on the mechanics of ToE. Saying you believe in atheistic/theistic evolution is to confuse and confound metaphysics with biology.

This.

Religion is almost exlusively a product of the ancient world. Stuff like "theistic evolution" and other attempts to incorporate many sciences into ancient worldviews that existed long before methodological naturalism became such a strong force in the world are just that, attempts to mesh modern information with ancient worldviews that almost without exception pride themselves on how "unchanging" they are and that are based in a supernatural mindset. To be honest the sort of mental juggling that creates the idea of theistic evolution happens in a lot of less news worthy ways every day.

 

[ebia]

This.

Religion is almost exlusively a product of the ancient world. Stuff like "theistic evolution" and other attempts to incorporate many sciences into ancient worldviews that existed long before methodological naturalism became such a strong force in the world are just that, attempts to mesh modern information with ancient worldviews that almost without exception pride themselves on how "unchanging" they are and that are based in a supernatural mindset. To be honest the sort of mental juggling that creates the idea of theistic evolution happens in a lot of less news worthy ways every day.

The idea that that Judeo/Christian thinking has been unchanging and has not always been developing is so absurd as to be laughable.