tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post2653521610327524488..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: Why evolution doesn't contradict religionmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-91929744738009661652008-04-09T16:39:00.000-07:002008-04-09T16:39:00.000-07:00I agree that evolution doesn't contradict religion...I agree that evolution doesn't contradict religion. The major religious leaders don't seem to think so either, as far as I can see. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, common sense and reason do contradict religion...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-25658844756951962532008-04-07T12:36:00.000-07:002008-04-07T12:36:00.000-07:00Alter Chemiker,That's exactly the sort of God that...Alter Chemiker,<BR/><BR/>That's exactly the sort of God that I would argue about entirely via philosophy and reasoning, with perhaps only a few references to science. It would not be a "scientific" argument unless your definition of "science" is so broad that includes all things vaguely rational.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-66509018589915676512008-04-06T21:23:00.000-07:002008-04-06T21:23:00.000-07:00If we take the definition of God as given by Thoma...If we take the definition of God as given by Thomas Aquinas (or by Aristotle before him) it is the “first cause.” The attributes of God beyond this definition are merely theological hypotheses. Aquinas thought that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. I accept the belief that the first cause of the universe was omnipotent, because I accept that “first cause” to be defined as the power that existed at the moment of the Big Bang. Since this power preceded and contained all the power of the universe, I will accept that it was omnipotent. Beyond that, I do not know what this power was like. <BR/><BR/>However, I am willing to look at the evidence. The evidence, which includes the evolution of the stars, the planets, and all the other bodies of material and energy in the universe, as well as the evolution of life in all its forms, seems to indicate that this power accepts and operates through the element of chance. Thus, the survival of the fittest is simply one embodiment of this chance. It appears that God does indeed play dice with the universe.<BR/><BR/>The evidence also shows something about what God is not. God does not involve himself in the affairs of men, other than through the use of chance. When we are lucky, it is not through the intervention of God; it is simply chance. The same is true when we are unlucky.<BR/><BR/>If the good in the universe is more than chance, it is due to the action of human beings or other living things. If the evil is more than chance, it is also due to humans or other living beings. If I believe in good (and I do), it is because I feel an obligation to the human race. However, I also believe that this feeling of obligation is the result of chance having developed this feeling in the evolution of my genome.<BR/><BR/>If we believe in the methods of science, our understanding of God or this “first cause” should proceed from the evidence. Science does not demand that we have answers for everything; most religions do. It is a perfectly acceptable scientific position to say, “I don’t know.” But I am willing to examine any evidence that you can offer.DeralterChemikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05418046984984036644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-76973834303266791942008-04-03T19:06:00.000-07:002008-04-03T19:06:00.000-07:00Of course evolution doesn't contradict religion in...Of course evolution doesn't contradict religion in general. In the same way, if people once believed that the other planets were gods, or that a god stood on top of the clouds throwing down lightning bolts, then science would contradict those beliefs, but not religion in general.<BR/> I saw a story recently that few religious people would have a problem with, (told for a different reason.) A fisherman was drowning in the sea after his boat sank. He prayed for God to rescue him. When a boat showed up, he waved them away, saying God will rescue him. He did the same for two other would-be rescuers. Then he drowned. He went to heaven, and was a little angry with God, and said, "Why didn't you rescue me?". God said, "I sent you three boats". This could be interpreted as saying that God may do things in a way that has other explanations besides being obviously miraculous, like reaching down and plucking the drowning man from the sea. So why not in the past, in the creation of the human species, also?<BR/> Atheists take this as an argument from a (ahem) devil's advocate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com