Theistic Evolution Questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2017, 10:46 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 10:51 PM)phoenix31 Wrote:  What do theistic evolutionists believe about original sin?

And I also don't imagine that the folks who wrote the book of Genesis, saw themselves as having some sort of vision as to what took place thousands of years before them, and decided to pen it down. Rather they were conveying their own human predicament, in a narrative form. To share that self-preception, which they valued with their subsequent communities.
Most myths originated pre-science. I expect that smart people were coming up with some imaginative stories to highlight some things that they saw as important. e.g why people wear clothes and are embarrassed when naked. Why people perceive some actions/choices to be bad where-as non human animals don't appear to have this distinction.
The tree of knowledge of right and wrong is an imaginative way to explain that there must have been some point where ancestors of humans didn't know (because we were similar to all the other animals) and then at some point we came to create this distinction between good behaviour/choices and bad behaviour/choices.

(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Creationists say the Christian God could not have included "death and ghastliness" as part of his creative process. What do theistic evolutionists say about that?

I'd point out that there's no real way around that, death and ghastliness exist as part of our created order. An omniscient and omnipotent God, would have known what the end result, of the world he was to create would be, and all things would have stemmed from his will, including the existence of death and ghastliness.
If there wasn't death, we wouldn't have evolved. For evolution to work we must have a situation where the fittest becomes more prolific and the least fittest become scarce and extinct. If you think about it, we are all competing for limited resources, those that get better at competing get to live and procreate. There is nothing right, wrong, good or evil about death. It just is.


Quote:How do they determine which parts of the Bible are considered myth and which aren't?
I expect it differs from person to person.
They go into it with the belief that god is perfect and loving.
If they read something in the bible, perhaps god drowning millions of people, babies, puppies etc, then they don't take it literrally.
Or perhaps god sending she bears to maul children to death, or perhaps god's warrior Moses telling his army to rape virgin girls, then they don't take those literally because it conflicts with their view of a loving god.

Also things that science proves as incorrect, they then take those things to be not literal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
14-02-2017, 11:19 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(14-02-2017 10:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Most myths originated pre-science. I expect that smart people were coming up with some imaginative stories to highlight some things that they saw as important. e.g why people wear clothes and are embarrassed when naked. Why people perceive some actions/choices to be bad where-as non human animals don't appear to have this distinction.

None of things would be important. Knowing why people came to wear clothes, etc... would be entirely useless knowledge. What is important, particularly in a tribal ancient world, is community, deeply woven together, united for unified purpose, taking on various roles in fulfillment of archetypes. Religious myth convey the structure and orientation of those communities, passing on generational values, morals, and model to aspire to. Because knowing how to keep a community together, when violence, uncertainty are constantly at the door, that's what of crucial important. It why religions have always been the bedrock of culture.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 11:41 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(14-02-2017 11:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 10:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Most myths originated pre-science. I expect that smart people were coming up with some imaginative stories to highlight some things that they saw as important. e.g why people wear clothes and are embarrassed when naked. Why people perceive some actions/choices to be bad where-as non human animals don't appear to have this distinction.

None of things would be important. Knowing why people came to wear clothes, etc... would be entirely useless knowledge. What is important, particularly in a tribal ancient world, is community, deeply woven together, united for unified purpose, taking on various roles in fulfillment of archetypes. Religious myth convey the structure and orientation of those communities, passing on generational values, morals, and model to aspire to. Because knowing how to keep a community together, when violence, uncertainty are constantly at the door, that's what of crucial important. It why religions have always been the bedrock of culture.
I was talking about the "original sin" Myth-story in particular.
It does reference A and E as strting off naked, and the after eating the "fruit"as being shamed about their nakeness and wanting to cover up.

I guess the people back then noticed that other animals didn't have this shame but the human's did. So I guess they figured it came with the good/bad realisation, as if it were bad to be naked. Just a myth aimed at explaining why humans wear clothes and other animals don't. Of course that's not the reason why we wore clothes. But they had no idea and thought it had something to do with "morality" so they linked it to their mythical tree of knowledge.

It's a story of nonsensical gibberish really, but shows how a primitive people tried to make sense of the world and their place in the world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
15-02-2017, 12:01 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(14-02-2017 11:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's a story of nonsensical gibberish really, but shows how a primitive people tried to make sense of the world and their place in the world.

Primitive people weren't trying to make sense of how things came about. Religious myth, weren't precursor to curiosities latter occupied by science. Their concern is how to function, how to live in this world, in their communities. Aspects that require constructing a conception of yourself, and the roles you play in it, passing it on generationally. Passing on whatever any particular community saw as the pinnacle of it's wisdom gained from their share experiences, to subsequent generations, so that they didn't have to start from scratch, in sharable narrative forms.

It would probably help to think of religion from a Darwinian perspective, seeking a functional explanation, beneficial to that of sustaining of a community. If your understanding of any religious myth, isn't one that would have served such a purpose, than you're understanding is wrong.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 12:18 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 12:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Primitive people weren't trying to make sense of how things came about. Religious myth, weren't precursor to curiosities latter occupied by science.

You really are a totally ignorant fool.
They were and it was.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-02-2017, 03:17 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2017 03:22 AM by Naielis.)
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(14-02-2017 01:03 PM)Alla Wrote:  
Naielis Wrote:Asking God for answers is a pointless exercise.
If you speak about personal experience I can not refute this.
Naielis Wrote:Even if you were to receive an answer in the form of actual spoken word, you wouldn't avoid the problems of Skepticism.
I agree. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Naielis Wrote:Revelational epistemology seems like it was designed just for skeptics to attack.
I can agree with that. And it is fine.

If an epistemology doesn't have a working response to the skeptic, then it fails immediately. Under that epistemology, you would have no way of distinguishing reality from a figment of your imagination. You couldn't rule out the BIV (Brain In Vat) hypothesis. Within that framework, you wouldn't even be able to claim you have knowledge about reality. Revelational epistemology offers no response to the skeptic whereas a foundationalist view based on axioms can.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 03:30 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
There is never any way of distinguishing this reality from a "brain in a vat". You can only assume, or state, that this is not the case.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
15-02-2017, 03:30 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 03:17 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 01:03 PM)Alla Wrote:  If you speak about personal experience I can not refute this.
I agree. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I can agree with that. And it is fine.

If an epistemology doesn't have a working response to the skeptic, then it fails immediately. Under that epistemology, you would have no way of distinguishing reality from a figment of your imagination. You couldn't rule out the BIV (Brain In Vat) hypothesis. Within that framework, you wouldn't even be able to claim you have knowledge about reality. Revelational epistemology offers no response to the skeptic whereas a foundationalist view based on axioms can.

You're giving Alla too much credit in being at all interested in having an accurate measure of reality. She simply believes what she likes, and changes it as needed to suit her preferences as they too change. Her reasons are all post hoc rationalizations, she gives zero fucks about having a firm epistemological foundation; because those require more work than she's either willing or able to put in, and they're far less malleable to changing whims.

TL;DR - Why do the work when you can just operate by feels and fiat?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-02-2017, 05:22 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 03:30 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  There is never any way of distinguishing this reality from a "brain in a vat". You can only assume, or state, that this is not the case.

I think content externalism has a very good response to the BIV hypothesis. I don't think assumptions solve the problem. Assumptions are the epistemological equivalent to bare assertion.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 05:39 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
Do you have a link?

I don't see how it's possible to "dismiss" the possibility without simply assuming it is false, or by other indirect assumptions. But I'm willing to read and see.

I don't assume it's false. I just don't care either way. It makes no practical difference.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: