I got into an argument today about evolution and christianity. Apparently this proves god's existance even more? A lot of people at my school share this sentiment and i don't understand the rational behind the argument. Today it was evolution is just more "free will" given by god (beyond me how he got to this conclusion). Thoughts?
Can Christianity and evolution coexist?
(20 posts) (14 voices)-
The ignorant can unjustly rationalize anything.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Len
MemberNotwithstanding the responses by Justice, Francesco, Custy, and Ursa, I'd ask the people to explain what evolution is - ie, what they think it is. They may be right or wrong about it, but until you know it will be difficult to challenge their thinking. I'd then ask them to explain the rationale that evolution proves god's existence. Ask them why and how.
Are they basing their ideas on what they themselves have worked out - ie, what they have read and thought about? Or are they basing things on what they've been told / taught? And by whom?
This may help, it may not - but at least you should gain some insight into why they think this way.
Posted 1 year ago # -
hammil
MemberHmmm, tis a tricky one. I'd say that yes, it <i>allows</i> for a god, but does not <i>require</i> one, unlike creation myths. With science, we can prove definitively that nothing requires a god, save for possibly the beginning of time itself, which we're still working on.
Posted 1 year ago # -
FO
MemberReligious belief is very flexible, can be adapted to say everything and its opposite.
Some people need a lot of validation of their belief, and will use really everything to prove to themselves that God exist in a spiral of confirmation bias.It rains -> it's God's portent.
The world is beautiful -> only God could have done it.
A single survivor in a slaughter -> it's because God saved him.
My mug exploded this morning while doing coffee -> God wants me to stay healthy, therefore God exists.
I think you guys know this far better than me.Posted 1 year ago # -
klyberess
Member@Noelle I agree that it is, for most practical purposes, a step forward. However, I think it's exceptionally intellectually dishonest, which makes me sad. At least the fundamentalists are consequent.
Although I guess there's the hope that enough cognitive dissonance will pop their bubble eventually.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Morpheus91
Member@klyberess: My question is whether it's better to be consistent or practical. Is a Christian who accepts evolution better or worse for society than a fundamentalist who rejects it? While the fundamentalist may be more intellectually honest, there's no doubt in my mind that the liberal Christian is better for societal progression.
Posted 1 year ago # -
hooper
Member"Is a Christian who accepts evolution better or worse for society than a fundamentalist who rejects it?"
better or worse aren't great terms but I see what you're getting at. Like Fitzgerald (supposedly) said, "True intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same instant" (I'm paraphrasing, it was something like that..)
My opinion is that it makes them 'better'. But there's also a big difference between a Christian who accepts evolution and integrates it into their understanding of the world (remoulding existing parts of that understanding as they go), and a Christian who abuses the theory and integrates a cut-down non-scientific version into their understanding of the world, in a way such that it doesn't conflict with their existing understanding. This type of Christian will nearly always attempt to attack the real theory as though it were identical, thus confining all their arguments to fallacy of division.
"While the fundamentalist may be more intellectually honest"
Except they're not. Being vehement about an outlook that you have no evidence to back up is not honesty, it's a fool's game, and when attempting to convince others through debate will nearly always involve outright lies to gain the upper ground.
Although maybe I'm being a little harsh here.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Morpheus91
Member@hooper: Better and worse aren't precise terms, I'll agree. I used them here because I think most of us on UF share a basic view of societal progression that includes people becoming less discriminatory, basing their understanding of the world around science rather than superstition, and so on. You make a good point, regarding different ways a Christian might say s/he "accepts" evolution. For my argument, I meant one who actually understands and admits the proper theory. We see examples of the other type in creationists who try to differentiate between "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
Regarding the intellectual honesty/dishonesty of fundamentalists, I should clarify what I meant. No, fundamentalism is not what I would call point blank "intellectual honesty" because it's still starting with a biased, baseless assumption, and twisting the evidence to suit that assumption. And yes, it's true that fundamentalists still cherry-pick which parts of the bible they're going to live by. HOWEVER, fundamentalists at least tend to think they have proof that what they say is true (well, at least the young earth creationist crowd does, I've still met some fundies who didn't give a damn about even trying to present proof), while the liberal Christian just says "The bible was tampered with by man, but I have faith that Jesus loves me."
I'm not arguing against liberal Christianity in this case. I'd rather deal with a liberal Christian than a fundy, because the liberal Christian will likely be more in-line with my practical goals for the world (increase education, decrease discrimination, etc.). I'm saying that while consistency is a virtue to be prized, we have to consider the end result over such a virtue in some cases.
Posted 1 year ago # -
hooper
Member"HOWEVER, fundamentalists at least tend to think they have proof that what they say is true"
But then what makes them any different from the Christians who are for evolution? The inclusion of a part of science in there thinking doesn't make their religious claims less consistent than the fundys. I admit there is something that irks me personally about religious people who try to incorporate hard science into their beliefs, but on the whole I think they're still a step up from the hardcore fundamentalist crowd - to me their incorporation of a part of science is a crack in the religious dam that has been erected in their mind. I hope that over time they will incorporate more cracks and that the dam will eventually collapse.
"I'm not arguing against liberal Christianity in this case. I'd rather deal with a liberal Christian than a fundy, because the liberal Christian will likely be more in-line with my practical goals for the world"
Yes, I agree, I think it's easier to communicate with those who accept evolution too. It's easier to discuss it's merits with someone who was only one finger in one ear, rather than both fingers in in both ears (i.e. fundamentalists). If they understand evolution correctly it can even be discussed disjoint from any talk of how it ties with religion.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Morpheus91
Member"But then what makes them any different from the Christians who are for evolution? The inclusion of a part of science in there thinking doesn't make their religious claims less consistent than the fundys."
I suppose I'm arguing that it makes their mindset less consistent, in that the bible claims some pretty nasty things, and they don't shy away from it. Maybe this is just my perception from growing up in a fundamentalist belief system; thinking about it now, it does seem that there's an equal amount of cherry-picking going on (i.e., fundys choose to believe the Genesis creation story, liberals choose to believe the "god is love" verses.). In any case, I'm continuing this element of the discussion solely out of curiosity; I find fundamentalism distasteful in pretty much every way.
"I think they're still a step up from the hardcore fundamentalist crowd - to me their incorporation of a part of science is a crack in the religious dam that has been erected in their mind. I hope that over time they will incorporate more cracks and that the dam will eventually collapse."
Indeed, that's very true. I think that's an important element of the work we as atheists will have to do, in the era that follows the recent popularity of the New Atheists/Four Horsemen. People like Dawkins and Hitchens brought atheism more into the public eye and hammered home things about the ugly side of religion, evolution being a fact, etc. Once those things become more widely accepted (at least they are widely talked about at the current time), it will be the job of the next generation of non-believers to topple the walls the horsemen, etc., cracked.
Posted 1 year ago # -
hooper
Member"Maybe this is just my perception from growing up in a fundamentalist belief system"
Like I said, I still (personally) have a problem with Christians who push the correct version of evolution because it of course smacks of having your cake and eating it. It's only my rationale that tells me that they are a step in the right direction.
This does all bring a question to mind: what is more common, for the deconverted to accept evolution before abandoning their faith, or after?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Len
Member@hooper:
I finally started to understand what evolution was around the same time as I was realising that the beliefs I used to hold were not even based on sand. One day the concept just seemed so logical and straightforward - as opposed to "waiting for a dog to have kittens" (as I more than once wrote on atheist websites).
So for me, pretty much simultaneously - although I guess I had already started to allow such terrible thoughts through what had once been my Christian defenses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
zach
MemberLen, I used this socratic method on some friends. The more I asked about the "why" and the "how" and pointed out the contradictions, the more frustrated and quiet they got. I felt that it worked perfectly.
lolol The Socratic method is the best way to argue. Faith dismantles itself by means of honest thinking and questions are sneaky little thought-seeds. They lodge themselves in the mind and can blossom into life-changing mindsets.
Is what happened to meh! :)
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.