Evolution conflict and division

[Akita Suggagaki]

It seems to me that Religion has to be very careful about science else is becomes pious fantasy.

 

[The Barbarian]

I had to look it up.



Stephen J. Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is
a principle proposing that science and religion represent distinct, non-overlapping domains of teaching authority ("magisteria") that do not conflict. Science investigates empirical facts and theories, while religion addresses questions of meaning, ethics, and values. Gould argued this separation allows both to coexist without conflict.

Then slso found


View attachment 375672

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2024.2351648?__cf_chl_tk=RtD8midWPGXOvlTrEkjcX_n6daa50BC6c8LQL2qFWDU-1769266240-1.0.1.1-.utbKUal4mgJ_eDysUGhIfjlHogGNhkFhe3Su8dAt08#d1e269

I think Gould was onto something. But then there is Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems to me that Religion has to be very careful about science else is becomes pious fantasy.

Today's winner.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think Gould was onto something. But then there is Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

.... and I mean all that I said earlier, Romans 1:20 not withstanding. And I have my reasons from saying this in a confrontational manner.

'cuz like I said, Copernicus is only my beginning point for considerations; but TODAY is my scientific endpoint.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I had to look it up.



Stephen J. Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is
a principle proposing that science and religion represent distinct, non-overlapping domains of teaching authority ("magisteria") that do not conflict. Science investigates empirical facts and theories, while religion addresses questions of meaning, ethics, and values. Gould argued this separation allows both to coexist without conflict.

Then slso found


View attachment 375672

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2024.2351648?__cf_chl_tk=RtD8midWPGXOvlTrEkjcX_n6daa50BC6c8LQL2qFWDU-1769266240-1.0.1.1-.utbKUal4mgJ_eDysUGhIfjlHogGNhkFhe3Su8dAt08#d1e269

The difference I would have with Gould on his NOMA is that I only insist on a separation of the Hard Sciences from Biblical Studies. Soft Sciences might have some bearing upon Scripture (...it is ancient literature, after all).

Whatever the case may be, I place Philosophy and Science first and the Bible has had to EARN a place of dominance AMONG my epistemic priorities. And if other people don't like my matrix, that's too darn bad. They should be grateful I'm not an atheist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, Augustine did say that whenever new evidence came up that indicated an error in understanding scripture that was not absolutely clear, we should be willing to revise our understanding. So I think he'd have been O.K. with Copernicus. Copernicus' claim, after all, was not heliocentrism. He merely claimed that if one assumed heliocentrism, that it greatly simplified and improved the accuracy of astronomical calculations. I suspect that he knew that the Earth orbited the sun, but was cautious about saying so.

It was not a new idea. Around 250 BC, Aristarchus of Samos, from observations and calculation, concluded that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, and that the Earth moved around the Sun. Copernicus was aware that Aristarchus advocated an Earth in motion.

I'd bet that if some in the Church from the past had to confront all we now know, some of them would have jumped ship and deconstructed due to cognitive dissonance.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The difference I would have with Gould on his NOMA is that I only insist on a separation of the Hard Sciences from Biblical Studies. Soft Sciences might have some bearing upon Scripture (...it is ancient literature, after all).

Whatever the case may be, I place Philosophy and Science first and the Bible has had to EARN a place of dominance AMONG my epistemic priorities. And if other people don't like my matrix, that's too darn bad. They should be grateful I'm not an atheist.

The problem is”revelation”. By problem I mean discernment. Since the enlightenment and the rise of rationalism reason and faith seem in conflict. The question is about what is revealed even in Genesis. Revelation is about human nature in relation to divinity. But it gets mistaken for geology and astrophysics. Then revelation contaminates reason instead of reason enlightening faith.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd bet that if some in the Church from the past had to confront all we now know, some of them would have jumped ship and deconstructed due to cognitive dissonance.

There were some hard realities to be faced.

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves​

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

In fact, geocentrism was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church. But it was a handy excuse for some in the Church to go after Galileo for other issues. Initially, the pope had been supportive of Galileo, until he mocked the pope in a thinly-disguised "dialogue."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem is”revelation”. By problem I mean discernment. Since the enlightenment and the rise of rationalism reason and faith seem in conflict. The question is about what is revealed even in Genesis. Revelation is about human nature in relation to divinity. But it gets mistaken for geology and astrophysics. Then revelation contaminates reason instead of reason enlightening faith.

From what you're implying about the historical carriage and engagement of the concept of biblical revelation, I think I agree with you, although I might refrain from saying that revelation "contaminates" reason.

In my thinking, what "contaminates" is the leaven of indolent and unjustified presuppositions about things we really don't know into our reading and teaching of the Bible and our various conceptions of revelation as a theological concept.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There were some hard realities to be faced.

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves​

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

In fact, geocentrism was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church. But it was a handy excuse for some in the Church to go after Galileo for other issues. Initially, the pope had been supportive of Galileo, until he mocked the pope in a thinly-disguised "dialogue."

You do realize I've studied World History, 2,000 years of Church History and Church Doctrine/Interpretation, the History of Philosophy, and the History of Science.

I'm already familiar with all that you're asserting here, but it doesn't dent what I've said previously. Just concentrate on the fact that both you and I are, to whatever degree, evolutionary in our assessment of the world's overall history and both still Christian.

As for Augustine, even though he said folks should be open to science and not misrepresent or overstate biblical intepretations, as per his book, City of God, he still had qualms with "the fable that there are Antipodes......." (the fuller quote is made by Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley in their book, The Bible, Rocks and Time (p. 32) [which is a Geological work and not a Biological one, obviously).

So yeah, although I'll keep and value my copy of Augustine's Confessions, I by no means give him the mike or the stage. No, I'll start with 21st century sciences (both hard and soft) and the Bible will just have to take a philosophical hit from it; and so will the Catholic Church. Galileo was probably right to say a "little something." as did Copernicus before him,

“There may be babblers, wholly ignorant of mathematics, who dare to condemn my hypothesis, upon the authority of some part of the Bible twisted to suit their purpose. I value them not, and scorn their unfounded judgment.” -- Nicolaus Copernicus​

​

Some of those babblers would also have included Luther, and probably Calvin, as well, so I'm not just knock, knock, knock'n on Catholic brethren.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some of those babblers would also have included Luther, and probably Calvin, as well, so I'm not just knock, knock, knock'n on Catholic brethren.

Well, yes. Both Calvin and Luther loudly criticized Copernicus. But the Church has the benefit of being more deliberate in doctrine. The downside is that it took a few hundred years to admit that Galileo was wrongly suspected of heresy. The upside is the Church never made foolish doctrinal claims of the sort we see in some other denominations. I suspect that many of Luther's and Calvin's followers knew better while at the same time, knew better than to say so.

My apologies for saying things you already know. I taught history of science for a time, and as you surely know, it's not something everyone knows much about.

 

[The Barbarian]

As for Augustine, even though he said folks should be open to science and not misrepresent or overstate biblical intepretations, as per his book, City of God, he still had qualms with "the fable that there are Antipodes......." (the fuller quote is made by Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley in their book, The Bible, Rocks and Time (p. 32) [which is a Geological work and not a Biological one, obviously).

Been a long time, but IIRC, Augustine's argument was not that there couldn't be people there, but that there wouldn't have been time for the descendants of Adam and Eve to have gotten across the oceans to populate those lands. He just didn't know how old mankind is. Again, I might be wrong... (Barbarian checks)... yes, that was his argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Been a long time, but IIRC, Augustine's argument was not that there couldn't be people there, but that there wouldn't have been time for the descendants of Adam and Eve to have gotten across the oceans to populate those lands. He just didn't know how old mankind is. Again, I might be wrong... (Barbarian checks)... yes, that was his argument.

And I might be wrong. (2PhiloVoid rechecks) .......... uh, somehow, it's not clear to me that I need to be trusting in every last word from Augustine, as per what I find in the full quote below, of that which I referred to earlier.

Whether we are to Believe in the Antipodes.

​

So, I won't be doing so any time soon.....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, yes. Both Calvin and Luther loudly criticized Copernicus. But the Church has the benefit of being more deliberate in doctrine. The downside is that it took a few hundred years to admit that Galileo was wrongly suspected of heresy. The upside is the Church never made foolish doctrinal claims of the sort we see in some other denominations. I suspect that many of Luther's and Calvin's followers knew better while at the same time, knew better than to say so.

My apologies for saying things you already know. I taught history of science for a time, and as you surely know, it's not something everyone knows much about.

And I appreciate your recognition of this and of many other academic considerations, brother Barbarian.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

From what you're implying about the historical carriage and engagement of the concept of biblical revelation, I think I agree with you, although I might refrain from saying that revelation "contaminates" reason.

In my thinking, what "contaminates" is the leaven of indolent and unjustified presuppositions about things we really don't know into our reading and teaching of the Bible and our various conceptions of revelation as a theological concept.

That is more accurate. “Indolent “ “presuppositions “ in the name of the faith originated in ancient cosmology..

 

[o_mlly]

Given that this thread is in the "Theistic Evolution" forum, it seems to me that the OP was asking about conflicts within the evolutionists' camps themselves. As it relates to development of the diversity of life, I don't see any differences in the claims of atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists. So, why the name change?

 

[The Barbarian]

Given that this thread is in the "Theistic Evolution" forum, it seems to me that the OP was asking about conflicts within the evolutionists' camps themselves. As it relates to development of the diversity of life, I don't see any differences in the claims of atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists. So, why the name change?

"Atheistic evolutionist" and "theistic evolutionist" are religious terms. Since science, including evolutionary theory, has no religious assumptions, scientists of all faiths and even those with no faith at all can do biology.

 

[o_mlly]

"Atheistic evolutionist" and "theistic evolutionist" are religious terms. Since science, including evolutionary theory, has no religious assumptions, scientists of all faiths and even those with no faith at all can do biology.

OK. So there no need for those two modifiers, right?

 

[Job 33:6]

OK. So there no need for those two modifiers, right?

I'm going to like this, because it's true that the OP opens with a false dichotomy. As though there were no such thing as a theistic evolutionist.

But of course the distinction exists in religious circles, especially when distinguishing between various types of creationists (theistic evolution could be identified as a type of creationist).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK. So there no need for those two modifiers, right?

Right. There's not need for it since it's an epistemic position, not a metaphysical one. But then, you'll have those like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne who feel the need to qualify their epistemic position and fudge it into a metaphysical one; conversely, there are those like Francis Collins and his BioLogos group who feel the need to qualify and tinge their view of evolution with a Christian identification with God as Creator.

Then there are those, like me, who instead start existentially, recognizing the general disciplinary parameters of the theory of evolution, accept it on separate terms (e.g. Geology, Paleontology, Biology, Neuroscience) from those upon which I later engage the assortment of Biblical books and letters (i.e. via terms of Historiography, The Philosophy of History, A.N.E. Studies, and Hermeneutics).

So, I don't have a need as a Christian to identify as a theist in order to affirm my current, but slowly developing viewpoint on both the Theory of Evolution, on the one hand, and the Biblical creation account(s), on the other.

But I understand where those who are either atheist or theist (Christian) are coming from when they each respectively state 'why' they feel they have to tag their particular positions.