TE and the soul

[Vance]

The question of whether Moses existed, of course, has nothing to do with theistic evolution, but more generally one of interpretation. It would be the rare Christian, regardless of belief on origins, who does not accept the historicity of Moses. Even most secular scholars of the Bible believe that all the figures from Abraham onwards is basically historical, even when they think there are mythic overlays (kind of like George Washington being historical, but the cherry tree being an overlay).

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually...science and religion do meet in origins...

No; fallacy of equivocation.

If religion has nothing to do with it why is it called "theistic" evolution?

Because you obviously don't know what "theistic evolution is."

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Actually...science and religion do meet in origins...

If religion has nothing to do with it why is it called "theistic" evolution?

And one of my biggest questions has to do with when did man change from pure animal to a spiritual being. Did God interact with those early humans? How far back on the evolutionary tree does Christ's redemption extend?

Those are necessary questions in my mind if we accept evolution as the means of God's creation.

there are a few tantalizing hints of things like this:
evidence of religious thought, burials, burial goods etc.

this is in the field of anthropology or paleoanthropology.
AFAIK the oldest burials are circa 300K years ago.

here is a link: http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199706/0103.html

 

[JVD]

I read the link...it is most interesting. Who is to say that these pre-neanderthals didn't have similar beliefs that unreached tribes had just 50 years ago...or even today?
That would show at least a recognition of spirituality.

 

[JVD]

OK Paladin, why is it called theistic evolution and not just evolution?

 

[gluadys]

Actually...science and religion do meet in origins...

If religion has nothing to do with it why is it called "theistic" evolution?

And one of my biggest questions has to do with when did man change from pure animal to a spiritual being. Did God interact with those early humans? How far back on the evolutionary tree does Christ's redemption extend?

Those are necessary questions in my mind if we accept evolution as the means of God's creation.

It's a big question for sure. But I think we have to accept that we will never know the answer. Physical (fossil) remains simply cannot give us that answer and never will.

 

[PaladinValer]

Theistic evolution denies nothing that science finds because theistic evolution holds that God could have Created complex life through evolution. The theory/fact itself is not meddled with one bit. The only "change" is that TE holds that God had, has, and shall always have a hand to play in it.

 

[Vance]

I think what Paladin means is that the evolution need not be a Christian "flavor" of evolution, one tinged with theological elements regarding the process itself, in order to be Theistic Evolution. All this requires is a belief that God is the overriding cause of all that we see. It is Theistic Evolution as distinguished from atheists believing in evolution. Now, it is true that many Christians who are Theistic Evolutionists DO incorporate many theological elements right in amongst the overall development, accepting the possibility of special creative events, such as with Man, or believing God may have been involved in "fine tuning" the process as it went along (a popular phrase among Intelligent Design theorists lately, not implying a lack of perfect design in need of tuning, but more that God managed the process in a hands-on manner throughout).

But, really, the ONLY reason Christians who believe in evolution feel the need to label themselves as Theistic Evolutionists is because YEC's have gone to such lengths to promote this "evolution equals atheism" concept. If it were not for that, Christians who accept evolution would not consider labeling themselves as such any more than they would call themselves Theistic Photosynthesists or Theistic Gravitationalists.

 

[seebs]

But, really, the ONLY reason Christians who believe in evolution feel the need to label themselves as Theistic Evolutionists is because YEC's have gone to such lengths to promote this "evolution equals atheism" concept. If it were not for that, Christians who accept evolution would not consider labeling themselves as such any more than they would call themselves Theistic Photosynthesists or Theistic Gravitationalists.

I think that's a very good point. No one asks me whether I believe in theistic electromagnetism, even though my explanations of electromagnetism don't involve God at all.

(And yes, that's a change; go back a couple hundred years and you'll find people arguing that lightning rods are a sinful attempt to avoid God's wrath. I am not making this up!)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Vance has it. I'd lose the term myself; evolution is no more or less theistic than any other branch of science.

I'm not sure why God having a special relationship with us requires that we are indwelt by a non-material immortal soul. God does not have pre-requisites; He can have a relationship with whatever He pleases.

That does not mean we are not spiritual beings - we have needs and facets that are best described that way, but the place where we experience these spiritual elements to our lives are, ironically, located in our very physical brain.

 

[JVD]

OK...so the theistic part is just there to show you are believers in God. It isn't needed at all. At least for most. And I can see that to a certain extent, but...

Then if you "go all the way" to Karl's belief that there is no need to say God has a special relationship with man and that everything is purely physical and not spiritual, you throw out the whole bible. What is the bible but the record of God's relationship with man?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that God does have a special relationship with us, but that is not because we have this immortal "soul" thing.

 

[JVD]

All right. You believe God does have a relationship with man. I'm glad to hear it.

May I ask what you believe about the bible references to spirituality in general. You obviously have to interpret the creation account different than the YECs, but what do you do with the different passages that refer to mans spirit? Are those interpreted as the brain as well...just the writers reference to the essence of a person that is a reflection of our brain?

Do you believe in a spirit realm at all? Is God a spirit?

I know for some this is a little too theological but for me it does seem to be needed. But this is the origins theology forum after all. You scientist types are comfortable dealing with science that you can see and feel. And I appreciate your posts because it has made me think, and change.

Like the days when the church did not want to give up the idea of the earth being the center of the universe, the notion that evolution may be true shakes some people religious foundations. It is important to understand how evolution can be understood within the context of the bible teachings.

 

[Vance]

And he definitely is not saying that we should throw the Bible out.

Too often I hear YEC's (not JVD, in particular, since he is honestly seeking what we believe) take the position that "if you don't read the Bible the way I do, then you really don't believe it at all, it is not really God's Word to you, and you should just toss it out". And they don't even see how self-absorbed and spiritually prideful this is, to believe that THEY are the ONLY ones who are truly reading the Bible as it was intended.

They start with the assumption that God wrote literally, and that this it is obvious to all that this IS how He wrote it. So, if anyone does not read it literally, they are choosing NOT to believe it the way God wrote it, and are choosing Man's knowedge *over* God's words. They can not even see how this might not be the case. Do they really think that Christians are sitting there saying "hmm, God, Man, God, Man, I think I will choose Man's knowledge over God!" This is just silly, but I really think this is how they view the TE approach.

And it is really is amazing given the fact that so many Christians don't read it literally, and this goes back to some of the earliest Christian and even Jewish interpretations. And, if a non-literal interpretation is possible, and this interpretation is not in conflict with evolution at all, then it is not a matter of choosing Man over God (which would qualify as a "duh!" if I was still in my 20's, the idea of Christians choosing Man's knowledge over God's Word).

I guess it is simply part of the "straw man" tactic so common to YEC's. Rather than deal with the issues as they really are (sincere, Bible-believing Christians who trust God fully and revere Bible as His Holy Word, but just think God was saying something different that they do), they instead create this caricature TE figure that they can easily knock down: the "worldly" psuedo-Christian who doesn't really trust God or His Word, and simply want to conform to this world and its knowledge. This is an easy figure to attack, even though it has no resemblance to Theistic Evolution in the least.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

All right. You believe God does have a relationship with man. I'm glad to hear it.

May I ask what you believe about the bible references to spirituality in general. You obviously have to interpret the creation account different than the YECs, but what do you do with the different passages that refer to mans spirit? Are those interpreted as the brain as well...just the writers reference to the essence of a person that is a reflection of our brain?

Yes. I said that "spirit" was a useful way of thinking of some aspects of our psyche, but that doesn't mean I believe there's a thing called a spirit that you could pull out and could exist on its own, any more than you could have a computer process seperated from its processor.

Do you believe in a spirit realm at all? Is God a spirit?

Of course, on both counts. If you mean disembodied souls floating around, though, then no. But I would suggest that "God is a spirit" is extremely inaccurate language. God is God, beyond beings both spirit and physical.

I know for some this is a little too theological but for me it does seem to be needed. But this is the origins theology forum after all. You scientist types are comfortable dealing with science that you can see and feel. And I appreciate your posts because it has made me think, and change.

Well, theology is the study of God and God transcends physical and spiritual existences.

Like the days when the church did not want to give up the idea of the earth being the center of the universe, the notion that evolution may be true shakes some people religious foundations. It is important to understand how evolution can be understood within the context of the bible teachings.

Just as heliocentricity was, indeed.

 

[Vance]

JVD,

Speaking as one TE, I do believe in a Spirit world, and that God is a spirit, a powerful force.

Keep in mind that Christianity, regardless of the origins issue, spans the entire spectrum on this issue, from traditional to more liberal like Karl. So, it should not be surprising that among those Christians who accept evolution, there will also be this full spectrum. You will find those like Herev (sorry, Herev, but I have chosen you as the proto-typical conservative TE!) who would believe on such matters exactly the same (or very nearly so) as any other conservative Christian. You will also find Christians who are not interested in the origins issue at all, who are very liberal and hold very untraditional beliefs (just head over to the "liberal christianity" forum and see!).

So, it is not that an acceptance of evolution and an old earth is part and parcel with a full collection of other beliefs on theological doctrine.

 

[Micaiah]

Maybe not, but the logic is in place to quickly move away from traditional Christian teaching ie. the plain truth taught in Scripture.

 

[JVD]

So, it is not that an acceptance of evolution and an old earth is part and parcel with a full collection of other beliefs on theological doctrine.

OK...but it does seem to me that TE's should flesh out a little of the theology that evolution would touch on. The spiritual man is an obvious point. There would be other points as well. But I can't think of them just now...need another cup of coffee.

At this point I am still open to the idea. I have always been a qualified YEC. I agree that the earth and universe looks much older than 6,000 years. A person has to do mental gymnastics to accept that young earth and especially a young universe. I have never really studied the fossil record and thought much about evolution.

God can do anything in any way he wants to...I guess Karl does believe in God, but from my point of view it doesn't seem like his worldview really needs a God.

 

[Micaiah]

What evidence would that be?

 

[Vance]

Maybe not, but the logic is in place to quickly move away from traditional Christian teaching ie. the plain truth taught in Scripture.

Ah, the old "slippery slope" dilemma. Here is the best way of thinking of this issue. Imagine you are at the top of a slippery slope. You come to realize that truth is most likely not with you there at at the top, but you also know it is definitely not down at the bottom of the slope, either, which is further from the truth than you are now. So, it must be in the middle. Do you just stay where you are, to be on the safe side, or do you carefully head down that slope, in search of the truth? I say head down the slope, just make sure you have shoes with good traction!

And really, though, you are begging the question a little as well (look, two logical fallacies in one post!). You are assuming that what you believe is the "plain truth taught in Scripture". Not to mention that the Truth taught in Scripture is always "plain", or at least the "plainest" reading. I have already shown elsewhere that the plainest reading is DEFINITELY not always the correct reading.

JVD: As for needing to address theological issues, I completely agree. Each Christian needs to address all these issues, not just those who accept evolution. You will not find a cohesive "statement of the soul" that is believed by those who would qualify as "Theistic Evolutionist" anymore than you will find agreement among those who would qualify as "Creationist" on a myriad of issues.

You have seen what a number of us believe on this subject, and this I believe is a good representative cross-section of approaches. Just as with Creationists, you have OEC, YEC, Gap, Progressive Creationism, Intelligent Design theorists, etc, you will find a variety of ways of looking at these issues.