Church Admits Darwin Was Right

[mosaix]

I think what Mosaix meant was some people regard the church as irrelevant so what does it matter what they believe in this week.

Spot on Vladd. I should have explained myself more clearly, but couldn't really be bothered at the time.

 

[Urlik]

I don't see how evolution or Darwinism can be compatible with ANY kind of theism. The two are seperate. Let them ride seperate horses into the sunset!

I shall let Devo answer that

God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
Were all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue

 

[AE35Unit]

Belief is a powerful thing; and your statement could honestly fit quite comfortably in any time period in history. The times has nothing to do with the belief.

For me a belief in god is a weakness,or rather a RELIANCE on god to sort your life out shows a weakness. It seems there's two types of faith. Faith in your own abilities and in those around you,and a delusional faith in which you put your trust in an imaginary being in the hope things will turn out ok. If it works then great,but its not your imaginary friend thats helped you,its you yourself! Cavemen had gods but we don't live in caves anymore and we have science to explain why that flower is yellow while another similar one over there is white. The sun doesn't rise in the east and set in the west,the earth simply rotates. Its a belief in god that put us in the centre of the universe,when we all know now that we're not even at the centre of the solar system! We are insignificant,a dot on a page,and its a BIG page!

 

[Interference]

No one cares, Mosaix, which is both the cause and effect of modern society.

Society seems to have evolved now beyond the need for God. On one side, moral strictures are well-known and respected by those who already have a functioning moral compass, while on the other the "Fear of God" has had no noticable effect whatever on wrong-doers, and it's been like this for quite some time, now. The issues become even more complex when we witness leaders encouraging the doing of wrong in the name (whatever that phrase means) of the God they represent.

For thousands of years our species was encouraged to take onboard that God was a Vengeful God who would visit His wrath on us, even unto the whatever-it-wasth generation, if we stepped out of line. Examples were passed around about how this Vengeance would manifest itself, from plagues to raining fire. And in case we should find that unconvincing, there was even a little cameo that asserted you don't even need to be bad for God to go all Supreme Deity on your a$$ (Job). But, for the last two millennia, He's mellowed, by all accounts (you can read all about it in the Jesus stories), so it's okay to be a little bit naughty, because He's evolved into a Forgiving God and even lowly priests are currently well placed to pass on His absolutions.

This has, of course, allowed murderers to be assured of a place in Heaven as long as, once they've done all the murdering they can reasonably take on in a single lifetime, they are able to say they're sorry.

But these days, people have cut out the Middle Deity and gone straight to forgiving themselves without the apology. The fear or promise of mythical afterlives are as nought to their mindset as they begin to wonder if having only one life to live might mean they'd be as well to pack as much into it as possible before it's over.

So where does that leave us?

It may be necessary to invoke some other form of moral arbiter to keep even the worst of us on the straight-and-narrow, because any deity worthy of being recruited to the role that stands squarely and mulishly in opposition to science is going to have a tough time of it in a scientific age (where even the smallest child can have a basic comprehension of the pre-historic and of man's origins as a species). If the New God is going to have any relevance for those who need Him, the Church is naturally going to have to redefine Him, and this may be the first subtle step towards that end.

We've done our bit. Now, it's time for God to evolve .....

 

[Parson]

For me a belief in god is a weakness,or rather a RELIANCE on god to sort your life out shows a weakness. It seems there's two types of faith. Faith in your own abilities and in those around you,and a delusional faith in which you put your trust in an imaginary being in the hope things will turn out ok. If it works then great,but its not your imaginary friend thats helped you,its you yourself!

The Christian God is more nuanced than this. We believe that God can even work through tragedy to bring about his ends. God does not bring tragedy, that's the results of sin at work. It is much the same way I believe that God worked through evolution to create humanity.

Interference: But these days, people have cut out the Middle Deity and gone straight to forgiving themselves without the apology. The fear or promise of mythical afterlives are as nought to their mindset as they begin to wonder if having only one life to live might mean they'd be as well to pack as much into it as possible before it's over.

These days are the same as all the prior days in this regard. Some people are able to forgive themselves and some people are not. But some of what people in all generations forgive themselves of, needs more than a personal free pass.

 

[Saeltari]

For me a belief in god is a weakness,or rather a RELIANCE on god to sort your life out shows a weakness. It seems there's two types of faith. Faith in your own abilities and in those around you,and a delusional faith in which you put your trust in an imaginary being in the hope things will turn out ok. If it works then great,but its not your imaginary friend thats helped you,its you yourself! Cavemen had gods but we don't live in caves anymore and we have science to explain why that flower is yellow while another similar one over there is white. The sun doesn't rise in the east and set in the west,the earth simply rotates. Its a belief in god that put us in the centre of the universe,when we all know now that we're not even at the centre of the solar system! We are insignificant,a dot on a page,and its a BIG page!

I don't disagree with most of what you say, I am actually pretty firmly in your camp but I know that some people feel the need for a diety of some sort and others do not.

However, I do completely and absolutely disagree with you where you think believing in god shows a weakness. Honestly in this case I would suggest it is only a weakness in your perception, because, following the logic, then belief in a psychiatrist would also be a weakness or belief that needing a friend to listen sometimes is a weakness. I have known people who are firm in their beliefs, but trust me, they were not weak in any sense of the term.

One could say that perceiving a weakness where one wants to perceive a weakness could be construed as a weakness . One could also say, in opposite, that some beliefs do bring a weakness, but not that they are in and of themselves a weakness.

 

[Cayal]

The Christian God is more nuanced than this. We believe that God can even work through tragedy to bring about his ends. God does not bring tragedy, that's the results of sin at work. It is much the same way I believe that God worked through evolution to create humanity.

I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.

If God was perfect and all-powerful, he would have made a perfect Adam and a perfect Eve. 100% holy and incorruptible.

 

[Drachir]

Spot on Vladd. I should have explained myself more clearly, but couldn't really be bothered at the time.

Then I'm sorry I was so sharp.

 

[The Procrastinator]

Saeltari:

However, I do completely and absolutely disagree with you where you think believing in god shows a weakness. Honestly in this case I would suggest it is only a weakness in your perception, because, following the logic, then belief in a psychiatrist would also be a weakness or belief that needing a friend to listen sometimes is a weakness. I have known people who are firm in their beliefs, but trust me, they were not weak in any sense of the term.

I agree with you here. "God is a crutch" - often touted, rarely honestly examined. We all have our little crutches (mine is chocolate). But seriously. Truth, justice, the human spirit, doing the right thing, the free market, human rights, equality, etc etc. In the cold light of day they look a bit like God's cousin, don't you find? All ways we try and get by. If someone wants to get by using faith or religion or whatever, that's all right by me, as long as they don't expect me to join in.

Cayal:

I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.

Ha yes, I love this too. Difficult to argue with, isn't it. Things quickly become emotional...

 

[Parson]

If God was perfect and all-powerful, he would have made a perfect Adam and a perfect Eve. 100% holy and incorruptible.

Maybe God thought that robots were not capable of true love? How do we know?

Christians believe in a God with infinite orders of magnitude more intelligence, love, and power that what humanity has shown. To understand God's motives would be as likely as a fly being a qualified candidate to be in charge of the Quantum Physics department of MIT.

(The Parson does not know if MIT has a Quantum Physics department, but the point remains the same.)

I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.

The truth may be frustrating, but it's always better in the long run to work with the truth than a convenient and happy fallacy.

 

[Interference]

The truth may be frustrating, but it's always better in the long run to work with the truth than a convenient and happy fallacy.

I really don't want to get stuck into this discussion (again) but, Parson, that sentence could be used against your proposition, you know.

Otherwise, your description of how religious people view their gods is, imo, right on the money.

 

[AE35Unit]

belief in a psychiatrist would also be a weakness or belief that needing a friend to listen sometimes is a weakness. I have known people who are firm in their beliefs, but trust me, they were not weak in any sense of the term.

.

But a psychiatrist is real,tangible. God isn't. Its an abstract idea, an ethereal being,a ghost,literally. A psychiatrist is there to help others. A god is there to make people help themselves. But ultimately its dilusional.

 

[AE35Unit]

I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.

If God was perfect and all-powerful, he would have made a perfect Adam and a perfect Eve. 100% holy and incorruptible.

Spot on there!
Also there wouldn't have been wars,false god worship a la Al Queda allowing its disciples to kill millions and call it gods will. Oh I'm sure god would REALLY approve of that if he were real!

 

[mosaix]

Then I'm sorry I was so sharp.

Drachir, not a problem.

The fault was entirely mine. I should have explained myself more clearly at the time.

 

[mosaix]

I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.

How true.

I remember that there was mining accident a few years ago, in the States I think. Several people trapped under ground. There was an erroneous statement released that trapped men had been found and were being brought out. A TV crew interviewed relatives waiting outside the mine - "It's a miracle, thank you God" was a common theme. However they were all dead. Subsequent interviews - not a mention of God but lots of blame on the mine owners and the guy who issued the original statement.

But my take on this 'Church admits Darwin was right' issue is that gradually, things that the Church thought were true - the structure of the Solar System being one - are being proved not to be so.

I would imagine that the Pope is in daily contact with God, via prayer (or imagines that he is) and is being guided by God. Isn't it plausible that once, just once, God would have said "Look before you torture that guy, let me tell you about the nature of the Solar System....". If there's one time that guidance was needed, it was then.

Anyway, about my post 'Who cares?'. What I meant was that what the Church thinks is irrelevant to me. The fundamental laws of the Universe and the physics and chemistry that drive the biological processes here on Earth are what they are - regardless of whether the Church agrees with them or not.

 

[Allegra]

I saw this the other day and found it quite funny: BBC NEWS | Europe | Two sexes 'sin in different ways'

So men's top 'sin' is lust (anything new?). Now that they accepted Darwin, they shouldn't be too picky on it for that's merely part of the survival business! Men or women, someone have to take the lead, right?

 

[Contrary Mary]

Must put in my two or three cents ehre.

First, the title of the thread. If you read the article, the Vatican stated that Darwin's theory is "not incompatible" with the Christian Faith. It did not specifically Darwin was right.

As far as Darwin being right, is it not ture that what is taught is the "theory" of evolution? I do agree that Darwin's theory does appear to be supported by very much scientific evidence.

One last point. If someone personally regards religion as a "weakness" that person may chose not to indulge in this perceived "weakness".

However, there are many, many people who find strength and comfort in ther religion. If religion helps some cope with the stresses and troubles of daily life, then permit them their "wekness".

I myself find comfort in reigion and strength. I am not quick with words so I probably cannot defined my faith as well as Parson can. But, the state categorically the "religion is a weakness: is a pretty sweeping statement. For some people I know, religion is their strength.

 

[j d worthington]

As far as Darwin being right, is it not ture that what is taught is the "theory" of evolution? I do agree that Darwin's theory does appear to be supported by very much scientific evidence.

Mary, while I could take issue with other points in your post (I've come to believe, on rather strong evidence, that religion is a weakness, across the board, for instance), the point I want to address is the common misconception of what "theory" means when applied to scientific concepts. For all intents and purposes, by the time anything reaches the point of being called a "theory" in science, that is the same as saying in common parlance that it is a fact, as it is supported by all the available evidence, as well as repeated testing and experience (yes, we have seen examples of speciation, for example). "Theory" in common parlance is much looser, meaning something like an idea or -- in scientific terms -- an hypothesis; something which seems reasonable and likely but has yet to be proven.

However, one of the prime points of science is falsifiability -- that is, that it is possible to imagine a set of circumstances which brings such an idea into question or proves it to be erroneous. Nothing in science is considered beyond that; hence it is no longer called "the law of gravitation" save in the historical sense of, e.g., "Newton's First Law", etc. Instead, it is "gravitational theory" because, even though we have absolutely no indication that it isn't the explanation for why bodies are attracted to each other, there is always the possibility left open that at some point something may refute it. Both with gravity and with evolution, that possibility is vanishingly close to the zero point, but it has to be left open to new evidence of that sort.

In other words, in everyday speech: No, it isn't a theory. It's a fact, backed by every scrap of evidence we have, and with nothing whatsoever to contradict it as an explanation of the diversity we see in life.

 

[Ursa major]

I saw this the other day and found it quite funny: BBC NEWS | Europe | Two sexes 'sin in different ways'

So men's top 'sin' is lust (anything new?). Now that they accepted Darwin, they shouldn't be too picky on it for that's merely part of the survival business! Men or women, someone have to take the lead, right?

Strictly speaking, men and women seem to have owned up to different sins. (The people who go to get their sins forgiven are still members of the same old shifty human species, a species that is quite willing to tailor what it says to its best advantage. )


By the way, I saw this article in yesterday's Observer:

Science is just one gene away from defeating religion | Comment is free | The Observer
​

It strikes me that some people (in this case the writer of the headline more than the author of the text) see the word, religion, and lose the ability to think straight. It's obviously a trait not confined to the religious**.



** - Ignoring anything else, some, at least, of the religious won't be listening about some gene or other, so it's hardly sensible to talk of "defeating religion" in this context.

 

[Parson]

However, there are many, many people who find strength and comfort in ther religion. If religion helps some cope with the stresses and troubles of daily life, then permit them their "wekness".

I myself find comfort in reigion and strength. I am not quick with words so I probably cannot defined my faith as well as Parson can. But, the state categorically the "religion is a weakness: is a pretty sweeping statement. For some people I know, religion is their strength.

C Mary,

I would agree with what J. D. has said about Evolution being a scientific theory, rather than a theory as we normally use it in our language.

I would agree with you that many people find strength and comfort in their religion. I believe that is for a very good reason. I believe that God saw to it (through the evolutionary process) that we were wired up to look for why questions, some of which can only be answered through faith systems.

However, I would not agree about my being "quick with words" if that means good with them. I often read what I wrote and say to myself: "If only you could write the way that so many of your teachers and heroes do!" But thanks for the KIND words!

On the other hand if you meant quick to speak and slow to listen, the sin of which James speaks, I plead guilty to that one nearly all the time.