Theistic Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. For the Catholic Church, it's an open question, which each believer can decide for himself. One may be an YE creationist, and remain a perfectly orthodox Roman Catholic. The only caveat the church offers is that one may not hold that all of this was not the creation of God, however He might have done it.

Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XIV, was expressing his opinion as to evolution of all life being "virtually certain", but that is not doctrine. Even if he had expressed that after becoming pope, it would not have been doctrine. That has to be given ex cathedra, to be so.

That's interesting as when I debate people some use the Catholic Church as an example of support for evolution giving the impression that if you are Catholic then you support evolution.

The Church, like most denominations, doesn't consider evolution to be a religious question. So Catholics are free to believe what they will about it, as far as the Church is concerned. If a pope expresses an opinion, it's just his opinion, unless he does so ex cathedra, or cites existing doctrine.

Whereas in reality there may be a mixture of beliefs including some who reject evolution or support God-guided evolution or a number of other mixtures of views.

I know some Catholics who are YE creationists. It's just not a religious issue.

It is interesting that they do not go into the emergence of Adam and Eve and how this fits in with how sin and death entered into humanity.

The Church acknowledges that there were two original ancestors and that their disobedience separated us from God.

I appreciate that this is the Church's position but I was referring to individual lay people. The above statement gives a broad explanation but lacks detail and I would say most would not understand evolution enough that they feel confident that it is correct so therefore will be trusting what others say like the church for their position.

I don't think many lay people of any denomination know much about evolution.

Yes and this is what some say about consciousness that it is something beyond the physical brain just as some say the soul is something beyond the physical body.

For Catholics, there's a unity of body and soul, which is a mystery. Not something science can investigate. The mechanics of consciousness, like the mechanics of the rest of the universe, are not sufficient to explain it all. That's what's out of reach of science.

So I guess there is a limit to where science can occupy in religious thought and belief.

Science is limited, anyway. Sometimes, when I'm alone and out in nature somewhere, there's a moment when I apprehend all of this and His role in it, and that's what an epiphany is. But science can't go there, even if scientists can.

Though some want to try and find ways in how divine concepts can be related to natural phenomenon through science. I find this interesting but at the end of the day, there are limits to what science can know about religious thought and belief. Science asks how and religion asks why.

I expect that He created all this so that everything works by consistent rules that He uses to make it all work. But whether He designed everything or merely arranged it so contingency would fulfill His intent, I do not know.

I've always thought this was about how we can see Gods creative ability in his creation. Though we tend to think of it as nature and many attributes everything to mother nature we can see that there is some agent behind things that have ability beyond what we can comprehend.

Barbarian, earlier:
No. Evolutionary theory makes no such claims. Can't. Science can't even comment on the supernatural. And apes and zebras and so on, also attribute agency to things. Yet they seem to have no concept of God.

Yes that is what I mean, according to evolution just like the animals we attribute agency to things and this accounts for why we have religious belief and not the fact that there is any God to believe in.

I don't see that in evolutionary theory. Even Richard Dawkins concludes that we can't say with certainty that there is no god.

They attempt to give a naturalistic explanation as to why people believe in God.

If there is, that's no sign that there is no God. It is entirely consistent with us being created so that we would seek Him.

 

[stevevw]

The Church acknowledges that there were two original ancestors and that their disobedience separated us from God.

This seems to be a bit ambiguous. Does it specify when the two ancestor came into existence as it sounds like it is saying they were original human ancestors in the sense of evolution? What made them representative of Adam and Eve and what was regarded as sin before they came along. Surely the two representatives were not the only people who thought the same way as evolution does not work that way.

It is gradual and can happen to a number of species at the same time just like with the enlightenment movement. According to evolution human thought was a slow and gradual thing with the use of fire and tools and then leading to abstract thought such as with attributing agency which would have begun with small things and evolved to divine concepts. There is not any specific beginning where two people like an Adam and Eve would have suddenly woke up and realized there was a God and that they had sinned against him.

I don't think many lay people of any denomination know much about evolution.

I agree, that is why I say that there is an element of faith involved where people just believe it is true without too much evidence to support this.

For Catholics, there's a unity of body and soul, which is a mystery. Not something science can investigate. The mechanics of consciousness, like the mechanics of the rest of the universe, are not sufficient to explain it all. That's what's out of reach of science.

Science is limited, anyway. Sometimes, when I'm alone and out in nature somewhere, there's a moment when I apprehend all of this and His role in it, and that's what an epiphany is. But science can't go there, even if scientists can.

yes that is true but I find it interesting that some scientists are trying to put a scientific theory onto what we call consciousness. Scientists like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff with their Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory of the mind based in Quantum physics.
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

Thomas Nagel is another great scientists who supports consciousness.
dedicated to the new information philosophy

Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body
Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body

Infact there are entire peer reviewed journals dedicated to consciousness.
Scientific Journals exploring consciousness, nonlocality, transpersonal psychology and other open science topics - Campaign for Open Science

Metaphysics is one area that looks into consciousness and there are some interesting ideas floating around pun intended.
Metaphysics special: What is consciousness?

I expect that He created all this so that everything works by consistent rules that He uses to make it all work. But whether He designed everything or merely arranged it so contingency would fulfill His intent, I do not know.

I think there had to be some guidance such as with laws or codes that have always been there. They are universal and stand apart from what is produced from them. It is interesting that even scientists who try to argue how existence came about through the Big Bang and when they speculate about what came before the Big bang they come back to some sort of quantum field which requires laws of physics to exist. So they are even acknowledging that there needed to be laws around that had to guide things before anything could happen.

I don't see that in evolutionary theory. Even Richard Dawkins concludes that we can't say with certainty that there is no god.

He has to say that as you can never rule anything out. But he has also said many times that a god is very unlikely for the very reasons I have quoted regarding evolution theory and science. That all the evidence points to there being no god and this is the same logic he uses to show that evolution is very likely. I mean he wrote a book called the God delusion which more or less talks about people being deluded into thinking there is a God. The Blind Watchmaker is an example of how Dawkins explains how nature can be created without God.

If there is, that's no sign that there is no God. It is entirely consistent with us being created so that we would seek Him.

I agree but my point is that according to evolution belief in God or the supernatural has no basis in there being a God but rather is based in a evolved ability just like culture. So in this sense supporters of theistic evolution cannot pick and choose what parts of evolution to support. The same theory that claims God used evolution to evolve life through naturalistic causes also states that religious belief is only an evolved ability based in attributing agency and not that there is a God to attribute that belief to.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Church acknowledges that there were two original ancestors and that their disobedience separated us from God.

This seems to be a bit ambiguous. Does it specify when the two ancestor came into existence as it sounds like it is saying they were original human ancestors in the sense of evolution? What made them representative of Adam and Eve and what was regarded as sin before they came along. Surely the two representatives were not the only people who thought the same way as evolution does not work that way.

To be more specific, the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people, from whom all other humans are descended. Their disobedience of God was original sin.

It is gradual and can happen to a number of species at the same time just like with the enlightenment movement.

The gift of an immortal soul is not gradual or natural. And that is what makes us different from the rest of the animals. We are, each of us, given a soul directly by God.

According to evolution human thought was a slow and gradual thing with the use of fire and tools and then leading to abstract thought such as with attributing agency which would have begun with small things and evolved to divine concepts. There is not any specific beginning where two people like an Adam and Eve would have suddenly woke up and realized there was a God and that they had sinned against him.

If Adam and Eve happened to be H. erectus, would that change anything? Have you not noticed the apparent contradiction in the Genesis account? Man can't know good and evil until he eats from the tree, but one can't sin, if one is not aware of good and evil. Other animals are innocent because they don't have that understanding.

So what's that about? I'd be interested in hearing what you think.

(Barbarian suggests that most people don't know much about evolution)

I agree, that is why I say that there is an element of faith involved where people just believe it is true without too much evidence to support this.

I don't know much about pharmacology, and yet I take my blood pressure meds regularly. My low blood pressure when taking them, is all the evidence I have, but being somewhat unclear on the action of beta blockers, I'm not sure how they work. (O.K., I just looked it up, so now, I know) The point is, I'm confident that my doctor knows, and that's what I depend on.

Barbarian observes:
For Catholics, there's a unity of body and soul, which is a mystery. Not something science can investigate. The mechanics of consciousness, like the mechanics of the rest of the universe, are not sufficient to explain it all. That's what's out of reach of science.

Science is limited, anyway. Sometimes, when I'm alone and out in nature somewhere, there's a moment when I apprehend all of this and His role in it, and that's what an epiphany is. But science can't go there, even if scientists can.

yes that is true but I find it interesting that some scientists are trying to put a scientific theory onto what we call consciousness. Scientists like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff with their Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory of the mind based in Quantum physics.
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

We can walk up to the door, and examine the door. But we can't open it. That's a revelation in itself.

I think there had to be some guidance such as with laws or codes that have always been there. They are universal and stand apart from what is produced from them. It is interesting that even scientists who try to argue how existence came about through the Big Bang and when they speculate about what came before the Big bang they come back to some sort of quantum field which requires laws of physics to exist. So they are even acknowledging that there needed to be laws around that had to guide things before anything could happen.

Something else has taken the term "metaphysics." Perhaps "transphysics?" Are you familiar with C.S. Lewis and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? One character says of the witch "she knows the magic at the beginning, but she doesn't know the deep magic just before the beginning."

All creatures are like that. Only God knows.

Barbarian observes:
I don't see that in evolutionary theory. Even Richard Dawkins concludes that we can't say with certainty that there is no god.

He has to say that as you can never rule anything out. But he has also said many times that a god is very unlikely for the very reasons I have quoted regarding evolution theory and science. That all the evidence points to there being no god and this is the same logic he uses to show that evolution is very likely. I mean he wrote a book called the God delusion which more or less talks about people being deluded into thinking there is a God. The Blind Watchmaker is an example of how Dawkins explains how nature can be created without God.

I don't read much of Dawkins. His religious beliefs seem to keep overruling his science.

Barbarian observes:
If there is, that's no sign that there is no God. It is entirely consistent with us being created so that we would seek Him.

I agree but my point is that according to evolution belief in God or the supernatural has no basis in there being a God but rather is based in a evolved ability just like culture.

So we live in a universe entirely consistent with there being God, but we don't have unambiguous proof of God. So Dawkins is like Thomas, who won't believe until he sees and touches. Jesus was his friend, so He made an exception to show him. Do you remember what he told Thomas?

Perhaps that's why it is as it is.

So in this sense supporters of theistic evolution cannot pick and choose what parts of evolution to support.

God is truth. A Christian should never fear the truth.

The same theory that claims God used evolution to evolve life through naturalistic causes also states that religious belief is only an evolved ability

No. It can only say that humans have evolved to seek the numinous. It can't say whether or not it is that way because God intended it so, or even if there is a God to seek. And in the end, because of the limitations built into the method, it can't even comment on the supernatural. But as I said, scientists can.

 

[stevevw]

Barbarian observes:
The Church acknowledges that there were two original ancestors and that their disobedience separated us from God.

To be more specific, the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people, from whom all other humans are descended. Their disobedience of God was original sin.

I a bit confused because if Adam and Eve were real people that all humans descended from then were they a form of ancient Hominin because for everyone to decent from them they would have to be the first humans. Yet as we know with evolution it is not just a case of only 2 creatures becoming new species but a population.

The gift of an immortal soul is not gradual or natural. And that is what makes us different from the rest of the animals. We are, each of us, given a soul directly by God.

I can understand if humans were well established and were able to contemplate God then they could have a spiritual awakening or be given a soul I guess. But that would have happened at a time when there were many of the species all needing to gain a soul at the same time. Was it like when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples and awakened them to go at the same time. Or was it a case that Adam and Eve were the only two with souls and all their descendants were then able to gain a soul and be aware of God. It seems there were other humans around at the same time as Adam and Eve who were not their descendants.

If Adam and Eve happened to be H. erectus, would that change anything?

I think it would make a difference because Homo Erectus is too primitive. Adam and Eve were able to till the soil and farm. They clothed themselves in shame from God and we have no records of Homo Erectus being that advanced. They also do not have abstract thinking to the point of knowing God. We know they may have had some primitive rituals but these are a far cry from the level of insight needed to understand a relationship with God.

Have you not noticed the apparent contradiction in the Genesis account? Man can't know good and evil until he eats from the tree, but one can't sin if one is not aware of good and evil. Other animals are innocent because they don't have that understanding.
So what's that about? I'd be interested in hearing what you think.

So are you saying there must have been a point where hominins moved from animals to people and we gained a conscience. Evolution theory would say that was the evolution of the brain/mind. We got smart enough to understand the consequences of our behaviour. As we lived in groups and were always causing each other problems and having disputes. We began to see the consequences for bad behaviour and a system of laws was divided so that it helped us live orderly.

(Barbarian suggests that most people don't know much about evolution)
I don't know much about pharmacology, and yet I take my blood pressure meds regularly. My low blood pressure when taking them, is all the evidence I have, but being somewhat unclear on the action of beta blockers, I'm not sure how they work. (O.K., I just looked it up, so now, I know) The point is, I'm confident that my doctor knows, and that's what I depend on.

Yes but evolution is different. It seems that it is a personalized topic (evolution v religion) and everyone wants to have a say. As Lynch stated the idea of natural selection is a fairly easy concept to understand and this can cause some to take liberties and speculate or have preconceived ideas that they believe are correct without the evidence. Not many people will challenge that smoking is bad for you though I know there are some quacks out there so maybe it's the same.

Barbarian observes:
For Catholics, there's a unity of body and soul, which is a mystery. Not something science can investigate. The mechanics of consciousness, like the mechanics of the rest of the universe, are not sufficient to explain it all. That's what's out of reach of science.

Science is limited, anyway. Sometimes, when I'm alone and out in nature somewhere, there's a moment when I apprehend all of this and His role in it, and that's what an epiphany is. But science can't go there, even if scientists can.

The problem is what some who are anti-creation or religion would say is that the epiphany is just an emotion which is associated with evolution somehow because non-religious people can feel the same when they experience mother nature being out in the wilderness or capturing a great view of the Grand Canyon. I think the realisation of God as the creator is more than a feeling and is based on faith, the evidence of things unseen.

Something else has taken the term "metaphysics." Perhaps "transphysics?" Are you familiar with C.S. Lewis and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? One character says of the witch "she knows the magic at the beginning, but she doesn't know the deep magic just before the beginning."

All creatures are like that. Only God knows.

I have heard of C. S. Lewis and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, I think I saw the movie. But I am not familiar with this part. It sort of reminds me of the Big Bang or the beginning of Life. They are certainly magical type events that we claim to know how they happened but we are still perplexed by what went on just before that. It sort of goes beyond our explanations.

Barbarian observes:
I don't see that in evolutionary theory. Even Richard Dawkins concludes that we can't say with certainty that there is no god.

I don't read much of Dawkins. His religious beliefs seem to keep overruling his science.

Its the other way around his atheism blinds all else.

Barbarian observes:
If there is, that's no sign that there is no God. It is entirely consistent with us being created so that we would seek Him.

So we live in a universe entirely consistent with there being God, but we don't have unambiguous proof of God. So Dawkins is like Thomas, who won't believe until he sees and touches. Jesus was his friend, so He made an exception to show him. Do you remember what he told Thomas?

Perhaps that's why it is as it is.

Yes doubting Thomas. Greater are those who do not see and believe. Somehow I can't see Dawkins ever changing. Though there have been some staunch atheists who have changed.

No. It can only say that humans have evolved to seek the numinous. It can't say whether or not it is that way because God intended it so, or even if there is a God to seek. And in the end, because of the limitations built into the method, it can't even comment on the supernatural. But as I said, scientists can.

But it is not commenting on the supernatural it is explaining what some think is supernatural and how humans believe as being an evolved ability just like culture gradually evolved or societies from people living in groups with shared practices and rituals. It is putting a scientific explanation on belief and religion just like it puts a scientific explanation of the evolution of the brain or humans themselves rather than being supernaturally created. That is why there are 100s of religions and why people believe in other out of this world ideas like ghosts, fairies, aliens, goblins and the like because it is an evolved idea as the brain evolved and our thinking became more sophisticated.

In short, humans are a believing bunch. And evolutionary anthropologists say that’s no miracle. The origins and ubiquity of religious beliefs can be explained by evolutionary theory.

So how does evolution explain religion?


Leading scholars propose a two-phase hypothesis (here, here): First, our ancestors evolved certain mental abilities, useful for survival and reproduction, which predisposed them to religious beliefs. Then, from the multitude of beliefs that emerged, particular religions spread and persisted because their deities and rituals promoted cooperation among practitioners.

Many mental ingredients are necessary for religion as-we-know-it. But scholars emphasize three tendencies in particular, which are pronounced in humans, but minimally expressed in other species: We seek patterns, infer intentions and learn by imitation.

These are cognitive adaptations that helped our ancestors survive. For example, it’s obviously useful to notice paw prints (a pattern) laid by a lion planning to eat you (an intention), and to deter the predator with tactics others have successfully used (imitation, at least before you could read how-to online). However, people overextend these tendencies. We also find patterns in randomness — like reading tea leaves — ascribe intentions to nonexistent beings — like blaming disasters on angry deities — and copy others even when it’s costly — like fasting and sacrifice. In this way adaptive mental abilities could have led to religious beliefs.
The Human Brain Evolved to Believe in Gods - The Crux

I like Jordan Petersen speaking on how societies form hierarchies. He makes a lot of sense in how societies became more ordered and how they developed belief.Though the video title mentions the Illuminati he hardly mentions this. I think this was associated with how they tried to bring the sciences to medievil society.

 

[The Barbarian]

I a bit confused because if Adam and Eve were real people that all humans descended from then were they a form of ancient Hominin

Seeing as H. erectus was toolmaking, appears to have used fire, and is very, very similar to archaic H. sapiens, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

because for everyone to decent from them they would have to be the first humans.

Or the first creatures on Earth to be given immortal souls.

Yet as we know with evolution it is not just a case of only 2 creatures becoming new species but a population.

Doesn't have to be. For example, all the hamsters in the United States are said to be descended from a single pair brought here from Syria.

I can understand if humans were well established and were able to contemplate God then they could have a spiritual awakening or be given a soul I guess. But that would have happened at a time when there were many of the species all needing to gain a soul at the same time.

Why not just two? Nothing in evolutionary theory says not.

I think it would make a difference because Homo Erectus is too primitive.

For what?

Adam and Eve were able to till the soil and farm.

We know that hunter-gatherers existed long before humans began to farm.

They clothed themselves in shame from God and we have no records of Homo Erectus being that advanced.

That seems to be a parable for our realization of good and evil. Some cultures don't consider nudity to be shameful in any way.

They also do not have abstract thinking to the point of knowing God.

How do you know that?

We know they may have had some primitive rituals but these are a far cry from the level of insight needed to understand a relationship with God.

How do you know that?

So are you saying there must have been a point where hominins moved from animals to people

We are animals. And at some point, God gave two hominins immortal souls.

and we gained a conscience.

That's the question I left for you. If Adam and Eve didn't gain an understanding of good and evil until they ate from the tree, how did they sin? You can only stretch a parable so far.

Evolution theory would say that was the evolution of the brain/mind.

Brain, anyway. So far, "mind" is kinda elusive. It's an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that's not all that it is. The connection between brain and soul is a mystery.

Yes but evolution is different. It seems that it is a personalized topic (evolution v religion)

You might as well say "gravity v religion."

The problem is what some who are anti-creation or religion would say is that the epiphany is just an emotion which is associated with evolution somehow because non-religious people can feel the same when they experience mother nature being out in the wilderness or capturing a great view of the Grand Canyon.

If God used nature to make us open to Him, would that be wrong?

I think the realisation of God as the creator is more than a feeling and is based on faith, the evidence of things unseen.

And if that ability to do so evolved...?

I have heard of C. S. Lewis and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, I think I saw the movie. But I am not familiar with this part. It sort of reminds me of the Big Bang or the beginning of Life. They are certainly magical type events that we claim to know how they happened but we are still perplexed by what went on just before that. It sort of goes beyond our explanations.

Yes.

Its the other way around his atheism blinds all else.

That's a religion. Fundy atheist.

Yes doubting Thomas. Greater are those who do not see and believe. Somehow I can't see Dawkins ever changing. Though there have been some staunch atheists who have changed.

But this, I think is why God didn't make Himself demonstrably true. I suppose it's because He wants us to be free to chose Him.

But it is not commenting on the supernatural it is explaining what some think is supernatural and how humans believe as being an evolved ability just like culture gradually evolved or societies from people living in groups with shared practices and rituals.

Right. So if God uses nature to make us as we are, we are free to take Him on faith. If He made Himself logically certain in this world, we would not be free.

It is putting a scientific explanation on belief and religion just like it puts a scientific explanation of the evolution of the brain or humans themselves rather than being supernaturally created.

Pretty clever of Him, no?

That is why there are 100s of religions and why people believe in other out of this world ideas like ghosts, fairies, aliens, goblins and the like because it is an evolved idea as the brain evolved and our thinking became more sophisticated.

As St. Paul observed, we are all able to realize the supernatural by His creation alone.

In short, humans are a believing bunch. And evolutionary anthropologists say that’s no miracle.

There's no rule that God has to do everything by miracles.

The origins and ubiquity of religious beliefs can be explained by evolutionary theory.

Or by the way Paul did it. Two sides of the same coin, I think.

So how does evolution explain religion?

Leading scholars propose a two-phase hypothesis (here, here): First, our ancestors evolved certain mental abilities, useful for survival and reproduction, which predisposed them to religious beliefs. Then, from the multitude of beliefs that emerged, particular religions spread and persisted because their deities and rituals promoted cooperation among practitioners.

And if He did it that way, would that be wrong?

I like Jordan Petersen speaking on how societies form hierarchies. He makes a lot of sense in how societies became more ordered and how they developed belief.

I was speaking this morning to someone who made that his life's work. Fortunately, writing precedes the formation of religion as it has become in the past 4,000 years. Initially, it was polytheistic and tolerant. There were different Gods in the various Sumerian city-states, but no one went to war over the differences. Nor was a special form of worship required. That came later.




\

 

[stevevw]

Seeing as H. erectus was toolmaking, appears to have used fire, and is very, very similar to archaic H. sapiens, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Or the first creatures on Earth to be given immortal souls.

It seems that Homo Erectus did not have the developed speech or language to be able to reason and hold spiritual thoughts and therefore have the ability to know God and understand that they had sinned. Also, Jesus is a descendent of Adam and a Homo sapien so Adam also had to be a homo sapien.

Habilis, erectus, and Neanderthal fossils do not have the configuration of the basicranium and upper vertebrae that can accommodate our very sophisticated type of speech organs and the neural substrate to support their functioning. The type of comparatively primitive speech organs that habilis, erectus and Neanderthal could have possessed were inadequate to produce our modern type of sophisticated rapid and well articulated speech that can carry advanced spiritual thought.
Who Were Our Adam and Eve?

Doesn't have to be. For example, all the hamsters in the United States are said to be descended from a single pair brought here from Syria.

That would be hard to determine as a species is hard to determine. When does a creature become a new species? As far as I understand it does not happen in one go. How do a male and female evolve at the same time as a species such as Adam and Eve? Does Adam evolve the ability to reason and know God and sin when his siblings and fellow species can't? Does Eve happen to evolve somewhere else in a population at the same time?

Why not just two? Nothing in evolutionary theory says not

As far as I have been told Evolution happens in populatios and not individuals. So the traits are there in the population amoung many and not just two of that population and eventually the new species will become different enough to split off. The problem I see is if two on the population split off to start a new line for Adam and Eve then they are not going to be too different from others in the population. If Adam and Eve did not know each other and came from different populations then it is a big coincident that they met up to form the new species that could know God.

If we use features as an example such as language it does not happen all of a sudden in one or two individuals. It is evolved bit by bit where people have different degrees of communication and language until it becomes more fluent. The same with reasoning. It is evolved and developed among many and not one or two. Ideas are shared and learned and that is what gives it meaning and this is then passed on gradually. You cannot really say there was any single point in time that this happened. It just happened in a population over generations.

For what?

To use the level of language and reasoning that would be required to understand the concepts of sin and be held accountable. They would have had limited langauge but not at the level of homo sapiens.

We know that hunter-gatherers existed long before humans began to farm.

Yet species like Homo Erectus did not farm.

That seems to be a parable for our realization of good and evil. Some cultures don't consider nudity to be shameful in any way.

That maybe more of an animalistic thing as animals are not bothered either.

How do you know that?

How do you know that?

From the above article and others like it they did not have the level of linguistics that are required for rational and reasoning thought. This can also be found in the particular bone structure that indicates the more advanced language in homo sapiens as opposed to Neandathals, Erectus and homo Habilus. Other research shows the tools and artifacts found do not associate with advanced language.

Homo sapiens appeared perhaps 200,000 years ago. The forehead is high and erect, the face is proportioned beautifully, the chin is prominent, the base of the skull is so mounted on the upper vertebrae that there is place for our speech organs.

From the fossil record we can infer that habilis, erectus, and the Neander- thals did not possess speech organs such as our own. The point of this writing is that their limited linguistic abilities could not support the knowledge and freedom that is evident in the couple who committed original sin.

Habilis, erectus, and Neanderthal fossils do not have the configuration of the basicranium and upper vertebrae that can accommodate our very sophisticated type of speech organs and the neural substrate to support their functioning. The type of comparatively primitive speech organs that habilis, erectus and Neanderthal could have possessed were inadequate to produce our modern type of sophisticated rapid and well articulated speech that can carry advanced spiritual thought.
Who Were Our Adam and Eve?

We are animals. And at some point, God gave two hominins immortal souls.

That would be the only way it could have happened. God chose two people and gave them a sould. But it could not have evolved in just two people at any significant level above others at the same time. The chose people would have to come from a species with advanced language and speaking which allows them to know how to live with that soul.

That's the question I left for you. If Adam and Eve didn't gain an understanding of good and evil until they ate from the tree, how did they sin? You can only stretch a parable so far.

So they must have gained a soul or a level of thinking, reasoning that allowed them to realized right from wrong which they did not have before. If God installed them with a sould then this would cause them to have a conscience. It may not have been sin until they realized this and willfully chose to eat the apple.[/quote]

 

[stevevw]

Brain, anyway. So far, "mind" is kinda elusive. It's an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that's not all that it is. The connection between brain and soul is a mystery.

Yes but for evolution theory, any thought or reasoning associated with religion or divine concepts is just advanced thinking from a brain that has evolved more. This is what I was referring to earlier about how Evolution theory which is based in science does not and cannot account for belief and divine concepts. So it comes up with scientific explanations for belief in the supernatural and the soul.

That is why I find it hard that Theistic evolution is happy enough to accept evolution theory explanation for how humans evolved with biologically, physically, mentally (cognition), culturally and socially, but they won't embrace the explanation for how religion, belief and ideas of gods evolved as part of evolved advanced thinking.

You might as well say "gravity v religion."

But you cannot personalise gravity. You don't see passionate debates about on debate sites, around the table and in social gatherings about gravity. There is something more to evolution v religion debate. It is associated with belief, our world view and existence.

If God used nature to make us open to Him, would that be wrong?

No that's exactly how He would use it and is in line with His word. But I am saying that non-religious people will see the same nature and attribute to well, just nature. In fact, they tend to make nature itself or rather Mother Nature as the power behind the beauty of nature.

And if that ability to do so evolved...?

It could have evolved. We all have free will and can choose to believe and trust in something. It is not just a religious thing. But I think there has to be a breakaway from science when it comes to divine concepts and Gods intervention in our lives. There is a relationship, a reaching out from God to us and this transcends the material world.

Right. So if God uses nature to make us as we are, we are free to take Him on faith. If He made Himself logically certain in this world, we would not be free.

yes

Pretty clever of Him, no?

I guess that depends on what side of the fence you stand. For believers, they can see how science can reveal a greater depth of God. For non-believers science just proves there is no need for God as it is all explained by naturalistic chance causes that create themselves somehow. The creative power and source of that power are given to the created and not the creator.

As St. Paul observed, we are all able to realize the supernatural by His creation alone.

Yes, there is research which shows we are natural born believers and it is living in secular society and being subjected to its teachings that gradually take this away. Peoples natural intuition to believe is seen in the many alternative beliefs people have in just about anything.

There's no rule that God has to do everything by miracles.

No, and this can also be a subjective thing. Some may say nature and life itself is a miracle. But some may have experienced a miracle. The point is even if someone truly experienced a miracle there are many ready to denounce it as hocus pocus or due to rational reasons. Yet ultimately there is a level of supernatural belief in all those who believe in God especially the resurrection of Christ. I think when it comes down to it this is the difference between non-believers and believers. Though a Theists can agree with the world view of evolution there are points where the supernatural comes in such as the beginning of existence and life.

And if He did it that way, would that be wrong?

No but the extension of this is that religious thought is not something that is based in there being anything real to believe in. Its just an evolved thought like culture is as human behaviour. But in the greater scheme of how God created us perhaps we needed to evolve to a certain point before we could understand and look for God.

I was speaking this morning to someone who made that his life's work. Fortunately, writing precedes the formation of religion as it has become in the past 4,000 years. Initially, it was polytheistic and tolerant. There were different Gods in the various Sumerian city-states, but no one went to war over the differences. Nor was a special form of worship required. That came later.

Didn't that come later as a result of the Israelites and God demanding that he was the only God and all other gods were a sign of idolatry and sin.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes but for evolution theory, any thought or reasoning associated with religion or divine concepts is just advanced thinking from a brain that has evolved more.

And if God made us able to know him by that means, would it be wrong?

This is what I was referring to earlier about how Evolution theory which is based in science does not and cannot account for belief and divine concepts.

Science, by its methodology is limited to the natural. So it can see the efficient cause, but not the final cause.

So it comes up with scientific explanations for belief in the supernatural and the soul.

It can describe mechanisms for belief, but it never comes up with a scientific explanation for the soul, because it is unable to do so by its very nature.

That is why I find it hard that Theistic evolution is happy enough to accept evolution theory explanation for how humans evolved with biologically, physically, mentally (cognition), culturally and socially, but they won't embrace the explanation for how religion, belief and ideas of gods evolved as part of evolved advanced thinking.

There's no problem with science studying how religious, belief, and ideas of gods evolved. Those things are within nature. The final cause is not.

Barbarian observes:
You might as well say "gravity v religion."

But you cannot personalise gravity.

British pilots in WWII did. They referred to the issue of decreasing momentum in a dogfight as "fighting Sir Isaac." I do see your point, but then one can't personalize evolution, either.

You don't see passionate debates about on debate sites, around the table and in social gatherings about gravity.

Rarely. Flat Earth seems to be another point of contention with people who fear science, and that requires that they deny gravity (else a Foucault pendulum would verify a spherical Earth).

There is something more to evolution v religion debate.

Yes. In the last century, YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists and it was widely proselytized to fundamentalists. This made an old Earth and evolution a serious challenge to their new doctrines.

It is associated with belief, our world view and existence.

It's not a problem for a traditional Christian.

Barbarian asks:
If God used nature to make us open to Him, would that be wrong?

No that's exactly how He would use it and is in line with His word. But I am saying that non-religious people will see the same nature and attribute to well, just nature.

Pretty much as they always have.

In fact, they tend to make nature itself or rather Mother Nature as the power behind the beauty of nature.

And there, they are confusing the efficient and material causes with the final cause.

Barbarian asks:
And if that ability to do so evolved...?

It could have evolved. We all have free will and can choose to believe and trust in something. It is not just a religious thing. But I think there has to be a breakaway from science when it comes to divine concepts and Gods intervention in our lives.

It can't be any other way than that. Science can't deal with the supernatural, or even say whether or not it exists.

Barbarian observes:
Right. So if God uses nature to make us as we are, we are free to take Him on faith. If He made Himself logically certain in this world, we would not be free.

yes

Pretty clever of Him, no?

I guess that depends on what side of the fence you stand. For believers, they can see how science can reveal a greater depth of God. For non-believers science just proves there is no need for God as it is all explained by naturalistic chance causes that create themselves somehow. The creative power and source of that power are given to the created and not the creator.

So we are free to accept Him on faith. Which, I assume is why He did it this way.

Yes, there is research which shows we are natural born believers and it is living in secular society and being subjected to its teachings that gradually take this away.

I see that a lot. St. Augustine warned us about this a long time ago:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.


The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.


Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine, De Genisi ad litteram

Peoples natural intuition to believe is seen in the many alternative beliefs people have in just about anything.

Matthew 7:14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Each age seems to have a preferred way to miss the way. Ontological naturalism is the one most use today.

Barbarian observes:
There's no rule that God has to do everything by miracles.

No, and this can also be a subjective thing. Some may say nature and life itself is a miracle.

That was Augustine's point. Somewhere, (I'll try to find it if you want) he wrote that people are amazed by reading of Lazurus rising from the grave, when things we see in this world are far more awesome miracles. I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea.

But some may have experienced a miracle. The point is even if someone truly experienced a miracle there are many ready to denounce it as hocus pocus or due to rational reasons.

This is one of the reasons I am disgusted with the many evangelists who do fake "leg lengthening" and other magic tricks that are obviously fakes. It causes unbelievers to assume all miracles are really clever tricks. The Catholic Church is very careful about this, and does a lot of investigation over miracles. Hence, the office of the Promoter of the Faith (often called the Advocatus Diaboli) whose job it was to argue against miracles of saints, to assure that alternative explanations were in adequate. There have been about 7,000 reports of miraculous healings a Lourdes. About 70 have been deemed by the church sufficient to call them miraculous.

(Barbarian asks if there would be anything wrong with God acting through nature)

No but the extension of this is that religious thought is not something that is based in there being anything real to believe in.

Seems as though He intended that possibility to seem real to those unwilling to have faith in Him. Goes back to freedom, I think.

Its just an evolved thought like culture is as human behaviour. But in the greater scheme of how God created us perhaps we needed to evolve to a certain point before we could understand and look for God.

And so He created the world. He made it so, by contingency or by necessity, as Aquinas wrote.

Barbarian observes:
I was speaking this morning to someone who made that his life's work. Fortunately, writing precedes the formation of religion as it has become in the past 4,000 years. Initially, it was polytheistic and tolerant. There were different Gods in the various Sumerian city-states, but no one went to war over the differences. Nor was a special form of worship required. That came later.

Didn't that come later as a result of the Israelites and God demanding that he was the only God and all other gods were a sign of idolatry and sin.

His observation was that before captivity in Babylon, Israelite homes often had votive figures, some of them of other gods or goddesses. When they returned from the captivity, there were no more votive figures at all.

Something happened to their religious thinking during that time in Babylon.

 

[stevevw]

And if God made us able to know him by that means, would it be wrong?

I guess not but that is not what evolution theory says happened with the evolution of the brain. A person would have to differ in their view of evolution theory to take that position. But if they are in agreement with the theory on everything else why differ on just that one aspect. If the theory says that religious belief is not based on anything real to believe in but rather a part of evolving thought then why disagree. Otherwise, that is picking and choosing what parts of the theory a person wants to accept.

Science, by its methodology is limited to the natural. So it can see the efficient cause, but not the final cause.

Even the efficient cause may be something science tries to understand but is a form of supernaturalism ie gravity allows massive chunks of rock to float in mid-air. That seems pretty supernatural to me. Just because scientists attempt to put an explanation on it doesn't make it natural.

It can describe mechanisms for belief, but it never comes up with a scientific explanation for the soul, because it is unable to do so by its very nature.

I am not sure of that. It seems if there is some observation to be made even if it were supernatural science will attempt to explain it in natural terms ie consciousness is described as a physical ability of the brain as opposed to an immaterial extension beyond the brain. So if consciousness is found to be something immaterial science will always find a material explanation. This could be what is happening with things like dark matter and energy and quantum physics.

There's no problem with science studying how religious, belief, and ideas of gods evolved. Those things are within nature. The final cause is not.

Barbarian observes:
You might as well say "gravity v religion."

British pilots in WWII did. They referred to the issue of decreasing momentum in a dogfight as "fighting Sir Isaac." I do see your point, but then one can't personalize evolution, either.

I am not sure if it is personalizing evolution of being consistent in supporting evolution in all aspects rather than picking and choosing the parts that suit personal belief. If anything Theists is personalizing evolution by altering it to it God in. The issue comes down to trying to make a scientific theory and religious belief fit together in one view.

Yes. In the last century, YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists and it was widely proselytized to fundamentalists. This made an old Earth and evolution a serious challenge to their new doctrines.

I would say not just Seventh-Day Adventists. Most religious belief up until the last century took the bible literally with creation.

It's not a problem for a traditional Christian.

I think many do not even get involved in the debate but that is not necessarily because they support evolution. In fact, I think it is more so about faith and they just believe that God created everything and are not bothered with the detail. Apart from Theists Christians will debate the merits of macroevolution and microevolution because they question whether evolution can produce new kinds. So there is an acceptance of evolution to a point but it is limited. I think this position is common.

Barbarian asks:
If God used nature to make us open to Him, would that be wrong?

Pretty much as they always have. [/quote] But I think there is a hidden premise in using nature as a means to explain what we see, at least in evolutions case. This is the personalization factor again. Though it is not stated I believe when people use nature as the explanation to account for life they are actually saying no God required. It is not the science itself but the person behind the science that makes it this way. That is why there is always vigorous debate on the subject.

I read somewhere about evolution being described as design without the need for a designer which supports how the theory is used not just as science but as a personalized position on faith versus atheism. Darwin's great discovery acted like the Copernican Revolution except for the creation of life and this challenged religious views of Gods creation. That is why I think we have to be careful when we support evolution that we draw a line on the implications of this for faith.

Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer
Darwin completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a lawful system of matter in motion that human reason can explain without recourse to supernatural agencies. The conundrum faced by Darwin can hardly be overestimated. The strength of the argument from design to demonstrate the role of the Creator had been forcefully set forth by philosophers and theologians. Wherever there is function or design, we look for its author. It was Darwin's greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. The origin and adaptations of organisms in their profusion and wondrous variations were thus brought into the realm of science.
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer

Barbarian asks:
And if that ability to do so evolved...?

It can't be any other way than that. Science can't deal with the supernatural, or even say whether or not it exists.

An interesting clash of evolution theory and faith is when one is called to follow Gods will whether in choosing a life course or in a specific situation. This can go against the fundamental basis of evolutionary theory in that a Christian may put themselves in a situation that may compromise their life even to the point of death which goes against natural selection and survival to reproduce. Evolution can never account for how altruism fits in with the theory.

 

[stevevw]

So we are free to accept Him on faith. Which, I assume is why He did it this way.

Yes

I see that a lot. St. Augustine warned us about this a long time ago:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine, De Genisi ad litteram

Matthew 7:14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I am liking the ideas of St Augustine. I have never really read much on him.

The interesting thing is everyone is searching for something to believe in beyond the material and their own world whether that be aliens, ghosts or fairies or dreaming of a great life from striking it rich, faith in others or some sort of entity beyond themselves which they believe has a greater power to change their life. But a person of faith has to be careful as their faith can be undermined by some of these ideas even an atheistic view of evolution which can give them the idea that life created itself and there is no need for God at all. I guess that is why some do not even get into the debate as they are content in their faith and do not see the need.

Each age seems to have a preferred way to miss the way. Ontological naturalism is the one most use today.

Yes it seems to be. It is almost like mother nature is a real entity. People refer to nature and the earth as an entity. Another way people can be get lost nowadays is with Technology. It is happening all around through media and there is a virtual world being created. people are absorbed by it and spend a lot of time in it to the point I think they believe more in the unreal world than in reality.

Barbarian observes:
There's no rule that God has to do everything by miracles.

That was Augustine's point. Somewhere, (I'll try to find it if you want) he wrote that people are amazed by reading of Lazurus rising from the grave, when things we see in this world are far more awesome miracles. I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea.

OK, yes that would be interesting to read. Referring back to the tech I also think people can be tricked into thinking that modern tech can be miraculous. They begin to believe in the power of tech being able to do anything. They begin to believe in the illusions it creates through the internet.

This is one of the reasons I am disgusted with the many evangelists who do fake "leg lengthening" and other magic tricks that are obviously fakes. It causes unbelievers to assume all miracles are really clever tricks. The Catholic Church is very careful about this, and does a lot of investigation over miracles. Hence, the office of the Promoter of the Faith (often called the Advocatus Diaboli) whose job it was to argue against miracles of saints, to assure that alternative explanations were in adequate. There have been about 7,000 reports of miraculous healings a Lourdes. About 70 have been deemed by the church sufficient to call them miraculous.

Yeah it can become a bit like a celebrity magic show, especially when you see all the magicians like Dynamo. They are given an almost high priest status.

(Barbarian asks if there would be anything wrong with God acting through nature)

No not at all. I just happen to think that in using nature there is some guidance through using laws, codes etc. Nature can be random and chance but I think the laws that govern it had to have been something that was always there and are eternal and universal because they cannot create themselves and something had to have initially guided the process.

Seems as though He intended that possibility to seem real to those unwilling to have faith in Him. Goes back to freedom, I think.

Yes the science is science and it is the individual's personal beliefs and world view that is most relevant as far as how they perceive what they see. One can see how nature works and ultimately know that God is behind it and another can think it all was able to create itself, no God required. But if God installed in us the ability to know him through nature then this must be done as a substitute in denial of Him being the ultimate cause.

And so He created the world. He made it so, by contingency or by necessity, as Aquinas wrote.

Yes

Barbarian observes:

I was speaking this morning to someone who made that his life's work. Fortunately, writing precedes the formation of religion as it has become in the past 4,000 years. Initially, it was polytheistic and tolerant. There were different Gods in the various Sumerian city-states, but no one went to war over the differences. Nor was a special form of worship required. That came later.

His observation was that before captivity in Babylon, Israelite homes often had votive figures, some of them of other gods or goddesses. When they returned from the captivity, there were no more votive figures at all.
Something happened to their religious thinking during that time in Babylon.

Yes, this is interesting how societies, nations perception changes. That is why I like Petersen. He describes how this process can happen. In ancient time hierarchies were formed and this was seen in the symbolism of pyramids being pointed at the top representing the King or god and wider at the bottom as the people or nation. The sun symbolically represented light and seeing and this is seen in early religions. Same with the eye symbol.

Moses ascended up a mountain to receive the commandments which represented being nearer to God and the people were at the bottom around the mountain. It seems symbolism was universally used which helped formulate divine thinking which led to believe in the God we know today. But God built upon this as he directed the Israelites.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes
I am liking the ideas of St Augustine. I have never really read much on him.

It strikes me, when I read him, that he's mostly common sense, allied with a great faith. When he was dying, a person came to him asking him to cure someone. Augustine replied that if he could do that, he would have done it for himself. The man said that he had dreamed an angel telling him to go to Augustine for this. Convinced by that, Augustine agreed and the person was healed.

Here's a link to some of his characteristic quotes:
15 Augustine Quotes That Helped Shape Modern Christian Thought

The interesting thing is everyone is searching for something to believe in beyond the material and their own world whether that be aliens, ghosts or fairies or dreaming of a great life from striking it rich, faith in others or some sort of entity beyond themselves which they believe has a greater power to change their life. But a person of faith has to be careful as their faith can be undermined by some of these ideas even an atheistic view of evolution which can give them the idea that life created itself and there is no need for God at all. I guess that is why some do not even get into the debate as they are content in their faith and do not see the need.

It's a problem for some. I have met students who were raised believing YE creationism was an essential Christian belief. When they discovered it could not be true, they had crises of faith. Sometimes, I think it might have been better if they had never learned the truth.

Yes it seems to be. It is almost like mother nature is a real entity. People refer to nature and the earth as an entity. Another way people can be get lost nowadays is with Technology. It is happening all around through media and there is a virtual world being created. people are absorbed by it and spend a lot of time in it to the point I think they believe more in the unreal world than in reality.

I always thought that they were a waste of time. Then I learned of a young man in Sweden who was severely disabled, needed constant care, and rarely able to leave his house. He lived in an online game, for years playing it, meeting others, and building a simulated life for himself.

When he died, the church was filled with his friends from the game, some of whom came from other countries to be there. Not a virtual church. A real one at his real funeral.

So that made me think. I still don't know what I think of that.

OK, yes that would be interesting to read. Referring back to the tech I also think people can be tricked into thinking that modern tech can be miraculous. They begin to believe in the power of tech being able to do anything. They begin to believe in the illusions it creates through the internet.

Yes. This is one of the reasons I am disgusted with the many evangelists who do fake "leg lengthening" and other magic tricks that are obviously fakes. It causes unbelievers to assume all miracles are really clever tricks.

Yeah it can become a bit like a celebrity magic show, especially when you see all the magicians like Dynamo. They are given an almost high priest status.

(Barbarian asks if there would be anything wrong with God acting through nature)

No not at all. I just happen to think that in using nature there is some guidance through using laws, codes etc. Nature can be random and chance but I think the laws that govern it had to have been something that was always there and are eternal and universal because they cannot create themselves and something had to have initially guided the process.

I think so. But that's out of the reach of science. Seems as though He intended that possibility to seem real to those unwilling to have faith in Him. Goes back to freedom, I think.

Yes the science is science and it is the individual's personal beliefs and world view that is most relevant as far as how they perceive what they see. One can see how nature works and ultimately know that God is behind it and another can think it all was able to create itself, no God required. But if God installed in us the ability to know him through nature then this must be done as a substitute in denial of Him being the ultimate cause.

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.

Barbarian, earlier:
And so He created the world. He made it so, by contingency or by necessity, as Aquinas wrote.

Yes

Barbarian observes:
I was speaking this morning to someone who made that his life's work. Fortunately, writing precedes the formation of religion as it has become in the past 4,000 years. Initially, it was polytheistic and tolerant. There were different Gods in the various Sumerian city-states, but no one went to war over the differences. Nor was a special form of worship required. That came later.

His observation was that before captivity in Babylon, Israelite homes often had votive figures, some of them of other gods or goddesses. When they returned from the captivity, there were no more votive figures at all.
Something happened to their religious thinking during that time in Babylon.

Yes, this is interesting how societies, nations perception changes. That is why I like Petersen. He describes how this process can happen. In ancient time hierarchies were formed and this was seen in the symbolism of pyramids being pointed at the top representing the King or god and wider at the bottom as the people or nation. The sun symbolically represented light and seeing and this is seen in early religions. Same with the eye symbol.

Moses ascended up a mountain to receive the commandments which represented being nearer to God and the people were at the bottom around the mountain. It seems symbolism was universally used which helped formulate divine thinking which led to believe in the God we know today. But God built upon this as he directed the Israelites.

I think so. The Akkadian habit of building great mound to raise their temples closer to the sky is striking. They had no mountains in Mesopotamia, so they made some. Somehow, by the time the Jews returned to Israel, they had ironed out the concept of only one God, and rigorously held to that thereafter.

 

[stevevw]

It strikes me, when I read him, that he's mostly common sense, allied with a great faith. When he was dying, a person came to him asking him to cure someone. Augustine replied that if he could do that, he would have done it for himself. The man said that he had dreamed an angel telling him to go to Augustine for this. Convinced by that, Augustine agreed and the person was healed.

Here's a link to some of his characteristic quotes:
15 Augustine Quotes That Helped Shape Modern Christian Thought

Thanks. I have read about some of the early men of the church in relation to evidence for Christ. I know Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyna were disciples of John who was a disciple of Jesus. Interestingly Irenaeus of Lyons is a disciple of Polycarp and it is these people of the early church who have kept the words of Christ alive.

It's a problem for some. I have met students who were raised believing YE creationism was an essential Christian belief. When they discovered it could not be true, they had crises of faith. Sometimes, I think it might have been better if they had never learned the truth.

I think we all can have a crisis of faith. Some have it the other way around where they begin to doubt God because they believe evolution is responsible for creating Life. It is either evolution or God and nothing in between. I think it is probably needed as it makes a person's faith stronger.

I always thought that they were a waste of time. Then I learned of a young man in Sweden who was severely disabled, needed constant care, and rarely able to leave his house. He lived in an online game, for years playing it, meeting others, and building a simulated life for himself.

When he died, the church was filled with his friends from the game, some of whom came from other countries to be there. Not a virtual church. A real one at his real funeral.

So that made me think. I still don't know what I think of that.

Like anything there are exceptions and good reasons for its use. It is all about balance and how much it stops a person from doing other important things like getting out in the real world. Of course in your friend's case, it was a benefit as he could not get out as much. For people in remote areas it puts them in touch with services especially with real-time conferencing.

For me, I could have video conferencing with fellow distance students and keep in touch with distant friends and family. Students can study anywhere in the world and it can be a wealth of good info that makes people more informed. But there is the negative side which may outweigh any benefits. Unfortunately like any science what was designed for good can also be used for bad.

(Barbarian asks if there would be anything wrong with God acting through nature)

I think so. But that's out of the reach of science. Seems as though He intended that possibility to seem real to those unwilling to have faith in Him. Goes back to freedom, I think.

But as I suggested before I think a non-believer (atheist) can look for substitutions for Gods creation even if that means using far fetched ideas that almost seem supernatural but as labelled scientific somehow because they may help support other speculated theories which are based on assumptions. Ideas like multiverses where all sorts of crazy things can happen, hologram worlds, mysterious Dark matter which holds the universe in place but has never been directly evidenced and cats being alive and dead at the same time are just some.

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.

or the following verses as far as denying Gods creation
21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. (22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Barbarian observes:

I was speaking this morning to someone who made that his life's work. Fortunately, writing precedes the formation of religion as it has become in the past 4,000 years. Initially, it was polytheistic and tolerant. There were different Gods in the various Sumerian city-states, but no one went to war over the differences. Nor was a special form of worship required. That came later.

His observation was that before captivity in Babylon, Israelite homes often had votive figures, some of them of other gods or goddesses. When they returned from the captivity, there were no more votive figures at all.
Something happened to their religious thinking during that time in Babylon.

I think so. The Akkadian habit of building great mound to raise their temples closer to the sky is striking. They had no mountains in Mesopotamia, so they made some. Somehow, by the time the Jews returned to Israel, they had ironed out the concept of only one God, and rigorously held to that thereafter.

Interesting sounds a bit like the tower of Babel as well. Considering as far as I know most other religions have more than one god or idols that represent gods or prominent spiritual entities the Hebrews had the single God which is the same God as Islam and Christianity.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks. I have read about some of the early men of the church in relation to evidence for Christ. I know Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyna were disciples of John who was a disciple of Jesus. Interestingly Irenaeus of Lyons is a disciple of Polycarp and it is these people of the early church who have kept the words of Christ alive.

As His church began to grow, there were so many false teachers. Paul alludes to them, but there were more after Paul. The Gnostics and others were in strong competition with apostolic Christianity at first. God looked after His church, fortunately.

I think we all can have a crisis of faith. Some have it the other way around where they begin to doubt God because they believe evolution is responsible for creating Life. It is either evolution or God and nothing in between. I think it is probably needed as it makes a person's faith stronger.

Yes. Catholics refer to it as the dark night of the soul. In college, that happened to me.

When I was young and lost in that dark valley
where God is a distant maybe,
you did what you had to do
and saved me.
Even though at the time all I could see
was betrayal.

And yes, it can strengthen one's faith.

And BTW, evolution is completely unable to explain the origin of life. It makes no predictions at all about that. If God magically poofed the first living things into being, evolution wouldn't be affected at all.

But as I suggested before I think a non-believer (atheist) can look for substitutions for Gods creation even if that means using far fetched ideas that almost seem supernatural but as labelled scientific somehow because they may help support other speculated theories which are based on assumptions. Ideas like multiverses where all sorts of crazy things can happen, hologram worlds, mysterious Dark matter which holds the universe in place but has never been directly evidenced

Multiverses are, AFAIK, untestable, and therefore not science. But apparently, there is good evidence for extra dimensions, packed so we don't notice. And something is gravitationally holding galaxies, which we so far, can't detect. As one physicist remarked, the universe is weirder than we imagine, and also weirder than we can imagine.

and cats being alive and dead at the same time are just some.

It's largely a joke; Schrödinger was rigging a thought experiment to deal with the fact that uncertainty works at the quantum level, but not at the macro level. To consider what's wrong with that...

While the cat is in the box, the poison is not released. This is because the cat is there to observe it and the probability distribution collapses to "cat not dead." On the other hand, there is a nonzero probability that during the experiment Schrödinger had a heart attack and died. He is neither dead nor alive until the cat pushes open the lid and sees him.

or the following verses as far as denying Gods creation

21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. (22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Paul's orthodox Judaism coming out. Iconoclastic to the last. But the point is an important one.

(regarding the Akkadian habit of building temples on artificial hills)

Interesting sounds a bit like the tower of Babel as well.

Quite likely, based on Babylon or Ur where unusually large hills were constructed.

Considering as far as I know most other religions have more than one god or idols that represent gods or prominent spiritual entities the Hebrews had the single God which is the same God as Islam and Christianity.

I know of two authentic monotheistic religions. Muslims, Christians, and Jews worship the God who spoke to Abraham. The other is Zoroasterism. The Aton cult that briefly existed in Egypt was more like monolatry, the worship of one god to the exclusion of others. This may have been the way things were for the early Hebrews, but by the time they returned from Babylon, they were strict monotheists.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

freezing fire..

 

[stevevw]

Multiverses are, AFAIK, untestable, and therefore not science. But apparently, there is good evidence for extra dimensions, packed so we don't notice. And something is gravitationally holding galaxies, which we so far, can't detect. As one physicist remarked, the universe is weirder than we imagine, and also weirder than we can imagine.

Yes the Multiverse is directly untestable but like some of the accepted theories ie big bang/inflation it is based on indirect evidence which seems to be enough to make it an accepted theory. The problem is there are aspects of it that cannot fit the well-accepted long-held theories like gravity and relativity that have never been worked out and may even question their validity. But some hold onto these ideas as they fit so well and suit the world view of their preconceived beliefs about the universe and existence.

Thee support for extra dimensions mainly comes from observations with quantum physics. So in some shape or form, there may be something beyond what we see. Some say this is the observer effect. But when anyone uses that to support an intelligence or anything remotely connected with the supernatural they are shot down. At the same time, some scientists can use their far fetched ideas like multiverses and string theory and get away with it. Either way, there is something going on beyond our reality call it what you want and scientists are having to step outside the classical physics of cause and effect to explain it hence dark matter and energy, multiverses, wormholes and string theory.

It's largely a joke;

Schrödinger was rigging a thought experiment to deal with the fact that uncertainty works at the quantum level, but not at the macro level. To consider what's wrong with that...

While the cat is in the box, the poison is not released. This is because the cat is there to observe it and the probability distribution collapses to "cat not dead." On the other hand, there is a nonzero probability that during the experiment Schrödinger had a heart attack and died. He is neither dead nor alive until the cat pushes open the lid and sees him.

It is not really a joke but more a thought experiment. But the schrödinger cat explanation of quantum physics is taken seriously by many. It is based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and is the most taught explanation for quantum physics which is one of the well-accepted theories. This is opposed to the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics which some theories like the Multiverse theory are based on. Rather than there be two possibilities in the Copenhagen interpretation the many worlds allow many possibilities branching off whenever the experiment is measured.

So if scientists are willing to base some important theories on this then it is certainly taken seriously. String theory is one and this has been proposed as the best candidate for explaining quantum gravity and unifying classical and quantum physics which has proven impossible to do so far. But scientists are having to appeal to increasingly complex and far fetched ideas that cannot be verified the more we discover to make it all fit. But if any scientists tried to include ideas like consciousness or anything beyond our reality associated with metaphysics that does not fit the materialistic view it is rejected.

I know of two authentic monotheistic religions. Muslims, Christians, and Jews worship the God who spoke to Abraham. The other is Zoroasterism. The Aton cult that briefly existed in Egypt was more like monolatry, the worship of one god to the exclusion of others. This may have been the way things were for the early Hebrews, but by the time they returned from Babylon, they were strict monotheists.

But interesting that there is really only the one God mentioned as the only single God and this was the same God for three of the biggest and greatest religions.

 

[The Barbarian]

So if scientists are willing to base some important theories on this then it is certainly taken seriously. String theory is one and this has been proposed as the best candidate for explaining quantum gravity and unifying classical and quantum physics which has proven impossible to do so far. But scientists are having to appeal to increasingly complex and far fetched ideas that cannot be verified the more we discover to make it all fit. But if any scientists tried to include ideas like consciousness or anything beyond our reality associated with metaphysics that does not fit the materialistic view it is rejected.

I'm not a physicist. But the wave/particle dichotomy of light tells me that there is a great deal to reality that is not observable to us. If light sometimes acts as though it's a wave, and sometimes as though it's a particle, that is pretty good confirmation of a deeper reality behind both.

But interesting that there is really only the one God mentioned as the only single God and this was the same God for three of the biggest and greatest religions.

I suppose we'd agree on why that happens to be true.

 

[JacksBratt]

Can someone please explain to me what Theistic Evolution is. Are there different versions of this. If Theistic Evolution is just the world view version of evolution with God thrown in as the initiator of life then what is the difference between Theistic Evolution and the world view version. Isn't this just reducing Gods role down to abiogenesis which is not really a part of evolution anyway as evolution begins at the point the first single living cell is in existence already? If Theistic evolution starts after God created the first single-celled life then there is no need to include God at all as this is irrelevant to evolution.

In my Opinion:

Theistic Evolution... is a term used to allow those who believe in God... to still hold on to the farce of evolution. It allows them to appease the atheistic, Darwinian Evolutionists by acceptance of life starting from one single life form... by allowing God to be the one who created it. Then, these believers of an intelligent designer, are allowed to state that this intelligent designer babysat His little life form as it morphed into the millions of different plants and animals of this universe over an obscene amount of time.

Theistic evolutionists cannot give full credit to the awesome power and magnificent superiority of our Creator to "speak" everything into existence exactly as the Bible says..... in six days.

Theistic Evolutionists are neither believers in the Darwinian, Atheistic, evolution....or the Biblical truth.. they are fence sitters trying to believe in God and believe in a theory that denies God.


True evolutionists need no God, no intelligent designer, no creator, no superior being who will judge the human race... In fact, this is what they are trying to avoid.

True Creationists stand by the word of God. Solidly upholding the biblical account of a Creator, Omniscient, Omnipresent and all powerful God who we will stand before in judgement. In fact, this is what we long for.

Theistic Evolutionists are caught in the middle. Believing in a creator but trying to avoid friction with the Darwinian evolutionists. Thus... they say it was God that created the life form and created through millions of years of Death and mutation.

I am not an expert in biology. I am not an expert in genetics. I am not an expert in any field of these or other sciences.

Even then... however... I am able to say that even the most simple of all beings has DNA. This DNA has the data to create whatever being that it resides in.

To say that this DNA happened by chance... is ludicrous. To say that even the different proteins that make up DNA happened by chance is ludicrous.

To say that the life that would be necessary to make this engine, with all its components run.... came by chance.. is the most ludicrous of all.

I have seen a number of presentations, done by scientists.. scientists who were Christian.. Scientists who were evolutionists at one time.. and scientists who were still searching for the answers...

I have seen all of them, in simple, laymen terms, explain how there is no way that there is not an intelligent designer.

I have listened to them say how young the earth must be..

So, in the end.... I will go with what the living word of God states...

 

[The Barbarian]

In my Opinion:

Theistic Evolution... is a term used to allow those who believe in God... to still hold on to the farce of evolution. It allows them to appease the atheistic, Darwinian Evolutionists

Hmm...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878

No, looks like you got that one wrong.

by acceptance of life starting from one single life form... by allowing God to be the one who created it. Then, these believers of an intelligent designer,

"Intelligent Creator." The "maybe a space alien" designer of the IDers isn't what God is.

are allowed to state that this intelligent designer babysat His little life form as it morphed into the millions of different plants and animals of this universe over an obscene amount of time.

You're selling God short. As Thomas Aquinas noted, God can use contingency just as easily as He can use necessity to implement His will.

YE creationists cannot give full credit to the awesome power and magnificent superiority of our Creator to create the diversity of life. Instead, they opt for a modern revision of Genesis that meets their preferences instead of His.

I am not an expert in biology. I am not an expert in genetics. I am not an expert in any field of these or other sciences.

Well yes, but you could spend a little time to learn about Genesis.

To say that this DNA happened by chance... is ludicrous.

Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't by chance. And the simplest reproducing biological entities in this world use RNA.

To say that even the different proteins that make up DNA happened by chance is ludicrous.

As I said, Darwin discovered that it's not by chance. But if it was, God could do it that way:

Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

So, in the end.... I will go with what the living word of God states...

You're going with a modern revision of God's word. Not a good idea.

 

[stevevw]

In my Opinion:

Theistic Evolution... is a term used to allow those who believe in God... to still hold on to the farce of evolution. It allows them to appease the atheistic, Darwinian Evolutionists by acceptance of life starting from one single life form... by allowing God to be the one who created it. Then, these believers of an intelligent designer, are allowed to state that this intelligent designer babysat His little life form as it morphed into the millions of different plants and animals of this universe over an obscene amount of time.

Theistic evolutionists cannot give full credit to the awesome power and magnificent superiority of our Creator to "speak" everything into existence exactly as the Bible says..... in six days.

Theistic Evolutionists are neither believers in the Darwinian, Atheistic, evolution....or the Biblical truth.. they are fence sitters trying to believe in God and believe in a theory that denies God.


True evolutionists need no God, no intelligent designer, no creator, no superior being who will judge the human race... In fact, this is what they are trying to avoid.

True Creationists stand by the word of God. Solidly upholding the biblical account of a Creator, Omniscient, Omnipresent and all powerful God who we will stand before in judgement. In fact, this is what we long for.

Theistic Evolutionists are caught in the middle. Believing in a creator but trying to avoid friction with the Darwinian evolutionists. Thus... they say it was God that created the life form and created through millions of years of Death and mutation.

I am not an expert in biology. I am not an expert in genetics. I am not an expert in any field of these or other sciences.

Even then... however... I am able to say that even the most simple of all beings has DNA. This DNA has the data to create whatever being that it resides in.

To say that this DNA happened by chance... is ludicrous. To say that even the different proteins that make up DNA happened by chance is ludicrous.

To say that the life that would be necessary to make this engine, with all its components run.... came by chance.. is the most ludicrous of all.

I have seen a number of presentations, done by scientists.. scientists who were Christian.. Scientists who were evolutionists at one time.. and scientists who were still searching for the answers...

I have seen all of them, in simple, laymen terms, explain how there is no way that there is not an intelligent designer.

I have listened to them say how young the earth must be..

So, in the end.... I will go with what the living word of God states...

AS a young earth creationists how do you think the vast variety of life came about. Was there a creation of a set number of certain kinds that maybe represented each species or genera or maybe family and from these all the variety we see was produced.

 

[JacksBratt]

AS a young earth creationists how do you think the vast variety of life came about. Was there a creation of a set number of certain kinds that maybe represented each species or genera or maybe family and from these all the variety we see was produced.

That is the general consensus. You would only need one breeding pair of a certain kind... Which held the DNA for that kind and allowed this species to produce the multi variations of that kind.

Just look at all the breeds of dogs there are.. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, German shepherds, coli's..... Yet all are Canine.

How would this be any more possible than every single living being, type, kind, species, plant and animal... coming from one single celled organism?

Christ, when talking to His disciples about where He was going, stated:

John 14:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

I draw your attention to the "If it were not so, I would have told you" portion.

I believe that God's word tells us what we need to know. It is:

2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So, why would it not tell us of this epic story of morphing and dying over millions of years as the one single celled being sprouted forth all others?

Why would He tell us that He formed Adam... the first man.. with no woman, with His own hands and breathed life into him.. And then, go to the extent of describing how the very first female woman was created.. after the man, from the man?

Even if you stretched it to the breaking point for all animals, plants and sea creatures..... You are never going to get man coming from apes....

So, you have to ask yourself.. Do you believe the Bible.. or the notes of some man in a white lab coat?
Do you believe the biblical account of the gospel... but toss the creation?

Do you stand on the wisdom of man... or the Words of God?

Romans 1:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


1 Corinthians 2:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 3:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.