5 ms·

Preface: I'm an Atheist The problem that I see is the way we frame these discussions. Does the question "do you believe God created humans in their present fo

Preface: I'm an Atheist The problem that I see is the way we frame these discussions. Does the question "do you believe God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years" preclude you from believing in science on any level?? In these discussions we throw everyone into one bin or another - you either believe in evolution or you believe God waves his/her magical hand for everything. I'd bet if you asked those same people the question "Do you believe God cooked your pop tarts this morning or do you believe the toaster cooked your pop tart through principles of electricity and heat" you'd get a much more interesting set of answers. (No doubt that you'd still get many that answer the former.) The problem with these questions is that what you are really asking people of faith is "Are you completely faithful to a religion that guides your daily life?" Most people use and come to religion to guide their day to day human interactions rather than using it as a tool to explore the principles of the universe. If we as humans want to make progress we have to stop pushing on the evolution lever - it just causes divisions. What we should be doing is approaching the topic of science for people of faith from a more artificial level meaning "if X causes Y then Z" sort of stuff. In other words we can approach and teach scientific principles without going down the rabbit hole. Some people will say this isn't possible but I just don't think thats true.

ricardobeat 14y ago
I don't see how "do you believe god created humans 10k years ago" can be answered affirmatively while simultaneously believing in evolution, unless you're thinking of a God unlike any of the generally known concepts. A yes carries the weight of rejecting enormous amounts of empirical evidence for evolution of the species and historical accounts.
- Locke1689 14y ago
  While this may be true according to some conceptions of God (personified and material God seems to be a fairly common belief, especially among laymen) most philosophical descriptions of God tend towards a "First Mover"-theory. That is, God created the universe, and the universe played out according to his creation. This definition of God is certainly compatible with all scientific advances because, by definition, this God is beyond the measure of science. I happen to find this belief rather boring and derivative of Plato (a natural world and a supernatural world, each separate and uncrossable except that the natural world is really just a poor reflection of the ideal and perfect supernatural world? Where have I heard that before?), but it's certainly not incompatible with science.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  I have learned never to underestimate the human ability for rationalization. Usually the smarter and more intelligent the person, the crazier and more convoluted the self rationalization goes. So believing god created humans and believing in evolution is, I think, quite common. "God guided the evolution". "God used the evolution to build the physical form then imbued the bodies with human souls". I could go on, but you get the gist. People are very irrational, and quite easily believe contradictory things.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    I'm not inclined to argue too hard in favor of God guided evolution, but I don't think you've demonstrated that such a belief is "very irrational". At worst, it's not provable, but it's not disprovable.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      > At worst, it's not provable, but it's not disprovable. And the next step is to realize that things that are neither provable nor disprovable do not have any effect on the universe we live in, and thus can safely be ignored and forgotten.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I thought the phrasing used in the article (humans had evolved without the guidance of a divine power) was particularly exclusionary. I know plenty of people who believe in evolution and God (they would answer no to the previous question). They don't buy into the whole six days and rib bone thing literally, but the process by which "monkeys" turned into people was overseen by someone pulling strings. There's a lot of chance in the world. Which of a million sperm fertilizes the egg that turns into Alexander the Great. I don't particularly believe someone's out there manipulating chance events, but it's not provably false, so I see no reason why it's fundamentally incompatible with science.
isleyaardvark 14y ago
The Gallup survey mentioned in the article had three choices: - Humans evolved, with God guiding - Humans evolved, but God had no part in process - God created humans in present form These choices pretty effectively cover the main views: non-theistic, rejection of science, and acceptance of parts of both.

ricardobeat 14y ago

I don't see how "do you believe god created humans 10k years ago" can be answered affirmatively while simultaneously believing in evolution, unless you're thinking of a God unlike any of the generally known concepts. A yes carries the weight of rejecting enormous amounts of empirical evidence for evolution of the species and historical accounts.

Locke1689 14y ago
While this may be true according to some conceptions of God (personified and material God seems to be a fairly common belief, especially among laymen) most philosophical descriptions of God tend towards a "First Mover"-theory. That is, God created the universe, and the universe played out according to his creation. This definition of God is certainly compatible with all scientific advances because, by definition, this God is beyond the measure of science. I happen to find this belief rather boring and derivative of Plato (a natural world and a supernatural world, each separate and uncrossable except that the natural world is really just a poor reflection of the ideal and perfect supernatural world? Where have I heard that before?), but it's certainly not incompatible with science.
rdtsc 14y ago
I have learned never to underestimate the human ability for rationalization. Usually the smarter and more intelligent the person, the crazier and more convoluted the self rationalization goes. So believing god created humans and believing in evolution is, I think, quite common. "God guided the evolution". "God used the evolution to build the physical form then imbued the bodies with human souls". I could go on, but you get the gist. People are very irrational, and quite easily believe contradictory things.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I'm not inclined to argue too hard in favor of God guided evolution, but I don't think you've demonstrated that such a belief is "very irrational". At worst, it's not provable, but it's not disprovable.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    > At worst, it's not provable, but it's not disprovable. And the next step is to realize that things that are neither provable nor disprovable do not have any effect on the universe we live in, and thus can safely be ignored and forgotten.
tedunangst 14y ago
I thought the phrasing used in the article (humans had evolved without the guidance of a divine power) was particularly exclusionary. I know plenty of people who believe in evolution and God (they would answer no to the previous question). They don't buy into the whole six days and rib bone thing literally, but the process by which "monkeys" turned into people was overseen by someone pulling strings. There's a lot of chance in the world. Which of a million sperm fertilizes the egg that turns into Alexander the Great. I don't particularly believe someone's out there manipulating chance events, but it's not provably false, so I see no reason why it's fundamentally incompatible with science.

isleyaardvark 14y ago

The Gallup survey mentioned in the article had three choices: - Humans evolved, with God guiding - Humans evolved, but God had no part in process - God created humans in present form These choices pretty effectively cover the main views: non-theistic, rejection of science, and acceptance of parts of both.