How do you reconcile Original Sin and Evolution?

[alexey]

Christ was dead three days and came back to life. The next time dead rise and walk the earth, it will be too late. There is no level of proof of ANYTHING that can prove something to a dead set non believer. Some choose to believe, others don't.

God could descend from on high, think a cold beer into your hand, fireworks shoot from his fingertips, give you the next powerball numbers, and slap you in the face with a bible and say "dude, DO WHAT I SAY" and man will still rebuke him. It is how we are. (thankfully not me)

Are you saying that people who disbelieve in supernatural stories which cannot be demonstrated will reject actual demonstrable evidence?

---------- Post added August-30th-2012 at 01:27 PM ----------

Not parable, but a story used to explain the effects of evil upon the world and humanity as reflected in human rebellion.

If that particular rebellion did not take take place, then there must have been a different rebellion... right?

---------- Post added August-30th-2012 at 01:30 PM ----------

I say that there are ruins in the earth that will never be discovered. We've been searching for Atlantis for a millenium and can't find evidence other than some crazy old man's writings. (the irony is awesome) I don't believe in a global flood. 'the world' is merely their interpretation of what they saw. If everything you know to exist is covered in water, probably a safe assumption everything you don't see is also covered. How do you think the Japanese felt when the tsunami hit? Their entire world was covered in water. If not for global media, they would continue to believe so until proven otherwise.

You bring some great questions to bear, Alexey. Thank you for your participation!

Things do fall in place if we take the Bible as people of that time writing about what they knew (or rather what they thought they knew).

If we are to claim that Bible contains some special information about actual events, however, then we somehow have to figure out which one is which.

[Jumbo]

There is no level of proof of ANYTHING that can prove something to a dead set non believer.

As most of us know, that works the other way too.

Makes discussion on the matter as interesting as those on abortion or political parties or "the south" or evolution or sexuality or....football...lol

It might also be pertinent to point out that "proof", or even seeking such, is not the most fitting term to use in framing the fundamental bedrock of what you state that you believe. Which I think is fine.

[DaGoonie55]

To you I submit the lunar walk (RIP Armstrong). There are live feeds, interviews, pictures, tons of measureable data, specimens, and still there are those out there that truly believe that it was filmed in a basement somewhere. Not to say that scripture and the lunar walk are similiar topics, just to show that people will believe what they want regardless of what is presented.

---------- Post added August-30th-2012 at 10:36 AM ----------

As most of us know, that works the other way too.

Makes discussion on the matter as interesting as those on abortion or political parties or "the south" or evolution or sexuality or....football...lol

It might also be pertinent to point out that "proof", or even seeking such, is not the most accurate term to use for the fundamental bedrock as to what you seem to believe. Which I think is fine.

Great point Jumbo. I'm new to scholarly level debate. I need to include both sides of the debate, not just the side I stand on.

Thanks!!

[China]

To get a sense of how ridiculous literalists look at this point, imagine two hermeneutically challenged biology students who read poet Robert Burns’ claim that “My love is like a red, red rose”. One rejects the text by averring that love really is a complex neurochemical reaction between serotonin and oxytocin.

Made me think of this:

[Jumbo]

Great point Jumbo. I'm new to scholarly level debate. I need to include both sides of the debate, not just the side I stand on.

Thanks!!

Then you're a too-rare and already valued poster, indeed.

[alexey]

To you I submit the lunar walk (RIP Armstrong). There are live feeds, interviews, pictures, tons of measureable data, specimens, and still there are those out there that truly believe that it was filmed in a basement somewhere. Not to say that scripture and the lunar walk are similiar topics, just to show that people will believe what they want regardless of what is presented.

Sure, but I don't think it is fair to lump together conspiracy theory loons and open-minded sane evidence-based atheists.

[SnyderShrugged]

The entire concept of original sin is one that troubles me. Heck, it even troubled my Mom, who spent her entire life as a devout catholic. I recall her telling us once that original sin is the main criticism of her church that she has (That and the barring of female clergy and allowing of clergy marriages).

[DaGoonie55]

I do not lump the nut jobs and sane atheists together at all, save for illustrating devotion to beliefs. My apologies if I offended. There is a little lunacy in all of us, when compared to the other side of the table. It is probably insane to you, that I believe in God and his fairies (lol). That he sent himself to be killed. That some old dude holding a stick parted a sea. I get that. But, if I am to accept that we should honor our parents, love your neighbors, not drool over his car - then I must also accept that all these things happened (or something of the sort). God was speaking to sheep herders. Not exactly Aristotle in the brain category. These guys describe for us wonderous happenings that they could only describe by comparing them to what they knew. More to the point of this thread, there had to have been people outside of the garden because there is no other explanation for the multitude of people elsewhere in the world.

Original sin is a tough one for me to explain. I do not see how a serpent talked, furthermore, how it was able to convince a woman to do something she didn't want to. (I have trouble getting my wife to do things she doesn't want to - still love her!) Adam and Eve seemed intelligent from what I read, the fruit seeminly held the knowledge of good and evil. Maybe a parable about coming of age and accountability? I'll definitely have to study this more.

[elkabong82]

Way back when, man wasn't ready to understand the concepts of life that we do today (some still aren't), so things were explained in a way that people of that time could understand, sort of like how parents might use the stork today.

[grhqofb5]

Some people believe that the Bible was inspired by the Devil to foster obedience to authority and hinder our ability to use our God-given moral faculties. Who else could twist believers into thinking that God would drown sinners or approve of slavery and genocide?

Yes, you are starting to make me think.

[alexey]

I do not lump the nut jobs and sane atheists together at all, save for illustrating devotion to beliefs. My apologies if I offended. There is a little lunacy in all of us, when compared to the other side of the table. It is probably insane to you, that I believe in God and his fairies (lol).

...

For me, this is not about offending but about being fair. Some people spend considerable efforts to get away from devotion to beliefs, to build their beliefs on testable evidence, and to remain open to updating their beliefs as new evidence comes in.

It is not insane to me that you believe in God. A belief in God is common and very natural.

It comes down to social acceptance. Believing in socially accepted things is generally not considered to be insane simply because going with the majority is generally a good/safe way to go.

---------- Post added August-30th-2012 at 02:47 PM ----------

Way back when, man wasn't ready to understand the concepts of life that we do today (some still aren't), so things were explained in a way that people of that time could understand, sort of like how parents might use the stork today.

How can we know which stuff we grew out of and when can we drop it?

[elkabong82]

You grow out of stuff as you move away from mysticism and towards scientifically-backed findings, like moving from Santa to the acceptance it is your parents putting the gifts there. That doesn't mean the spirit of the holiday and the meaning has to go away, just that the story is a means for understanding, not set-in-stone truth. When to move on is dependent both on the individual and on society's acceptance of scientific explanation. I'm one who happens to think that science is actually bringing us closer to God, not further away.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If that particular rebellion did not take take place, then there must have been a different rebellion... right?

I don't believe in a literal "fruit", as such it is about all rebellion against the will of God.

[alexey]

You grow out of stuff as you move away from mysticism and towards scientifically-backed findings, like moving from Santa to the acceptance it is your parents putting the gifts there. That doesn't mean the spirit of the holiday and the meaning has to go away, just that the story is a means for understanding, not set-in-stone truth. When to move on is dependent both on the individual and on society's acceptance of scientific explanation. I'm one who happens to think that science is actually bringing us closer to God, not further away.

One approach is based on faith, authority, and revealed knowledge, while another approach is based on skepticism, testable claims, and critical thinking.

It seems that the process you are talking about, growing our of superstition, leads out of religion altogether. And yes that will get us closer to truth, which some people may equate to God.

I think that the meaning of religious holidays will necessarily change if you move away from religion. You can still value them, celebrate them, enjoy them, but they will not mean the same thing. Just like getting presents from your parents is not the same as getting presents from Santa. Hopefully children will eventually realize that getting presents from their parents is actually more special

---------- Post added August-30th-2012 at 04:39 PM ----------

I don't believe in a literal "fruit", as such it is about all rebellion against the will of God.

Makes sense, I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page about the original sin story not describing the actual event of the original sin.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Makes sense, I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page about the original sin story not describing the actual event of the original sin.

Even Origen (3rd century) knew that the creation and temptation accounts were not literal, he saw them much more allegorically meaning that every item in the stories pointed directly to a future reality. I don't buy the allegory, but he's right about rejecting literal interpretation.

[alexey]

Even Origen (3rd century) knew that the creation and temptation accounts were not literal, he saw them much more allegorically meaning that every item in the stories pointed directly to a future reality. I don't buy the allegory, but he's right about rejecting literal interpretation.

Good to know, thanks for the information.

[PeterMP]

One approach is based on faith, authority, and revealed knowledge, while another approach is based on skepticism, testable claims, and critical thinking.

It seems that the process you are talking about, growing our of superstition, leads out of religion altogether. And yes that will get us closer to truth, which some people may equate to God.

The suggestion that a belief in God requires or is inconsistent with a lack of critical thinking is an insult to many thoughtful and intelligent believers.

And the enlightment and current society is the essentially the result of people that believed in God and were critical thinkers starting with St. Augestine (another pre-science person that suggested that Genesis should not be treated as fact) leading to the early astronomers (like Galielo) to many of the founding fathers of our country (many of whom believe in active god and a god based justice).

And this continues to this day.

You actually once said something about constraints and limiting yourself to small numbers of options that has stuck with me, but that is essentially what you continually do in these threads.

Further more, you continue to suggest that there is some superior method through things like "revealed knowledge" as related to "truth" w/o directly answering questions like why is it (more) okay to kill bacteria than people.

This is a serious misrepresentation of what most methods of "testable claims" (i.e. science) can reveal.

And long term a move in this direction will damage science because it can not deliver what you are suggesting (it can't provide reasons why it is "better" to kill bacteria than let humans die).

[Kosher Ham]

ASF, Can you explain why they were banished if given free will ? The way you feel about it, not the telemarketer script.

That's like telling a kid they can have anything but this...of course this is the thing they are most curious about.

[alexey]

The suggestion that a belief in God requires or is inconsistent with a lack of critical thinking is an insult to many thoughtful and intelligent believers.

And the enlightment and current society is the essentially the result of people that believed in God and were critical thinkers starting with St. Augestine (another pre-science person that suggested that Genesis should not be treated as fact) leading to the early astronomers (like Galielo) to many of the founding fathers of our country (many of whom believe in active god and a god based justice).

And this continues to this day.

You actually once said something about constraints and limiting yourself to small numbers of options that has stuck with me, but that is essentially what you continually do in these threads.

Further more, you continue to suggest that there is some superior method through things like "revealed knowledge" as related to "truth" w/o directly answering questions like why is it (more) okay to kill bacteria than people.

This is a serious misrepresentation of what most methods of "testable claims" (i.e. science) can reveal.

And long term a move in this direction will damage science because it can not deliver what you are suggesting (it can't provide reasons why it is "better" to kill bacteria than let humans die).

I do not see belief in God as being inconsistent with critical thinking. I see critical thinking being generally discouraged by religions (some may disagree with this), but the main failure in a belief in God is that of skepticism. This is how very smart people end up spending parts the only life they have critically thinking about important theological issues like the nature of the trinity and mechanisms for bodily resurrection of cannibals. We can only guess what meaningful contributions they would have made should they have applied their talents in other areas.

The only constraint I propose here is not believing things unless there is a good reason to do so.

Looks like you are also bringing up some of our past disputes. Your claims about the history and our founding fathers are a misrepresentation deserving of another thread. I'll be happy to discuss it there if you like. Science can tell where vast majority of humans stand in relation to your bacterial life vs human life question.

[Zguy28]

If the dead are demonstrated to communicate messages to the living, it will certainly turn some heads. That kind of evidence would be more convincing than ancient myths and anecdotes.

So what do we have? God can provide better evidence to convince people, but he decides not to. And then, according to rules that he set up, people who did not get convinced on insufficient evidence will get tortured for eternity. What am i missing?

You know how it goes Alexey, dont play coy. Jesus was God incarnate, lived a sinless life we could never live, died the death we deserve, and rose from the dead. He did come back, but you haven't believed. God gave you His Word. You didn't believe it. He rescued Israel from slavery and destroyed Pharaoh and his armies. You don't believe it. He answered Elijah's prayer to call down fire and light the soaking wet wood pile aflame. You don't believe it.

He sent His Son to die and be raised and appear for weeks to many people. You don't believe it.

If you don't believe those, nothing will convince you.

[alexey]

You know how it goes Alexey, dont play coy. Jesus was God incarnate, lived a sinless life we could never live, died the death we deserve, and rose from the dead. He did come back, but you haven't believed. God gave you His Word. You didn't believe it. He rescued Israel from slavery and destroyed Pharaoh and his armies. You don't believe it. He answered Elijah's prayer to call down fire and light the soaking wet wood pile aflame. You don't believe it.

He sent His Son to die and be raised and appear for weeks to many people. You don't believe it.

If you don't believe those, nothing will convince you.

If you're not going to believe these particular set of ancient stories, a small subset out of thousands, stories of type which every culture and every religion creates prodigiously, then certainly no actual evidence could work for me. Come on now.

I do not believe because I see no good reason to believe. Every culture had a religion. Religions are natural and very common. I look at the Bible and I see an ancient religious text. Same thing when I look at Koran, Greek myths, and whatever other religious texts or narratives there are. What reason do I have for believing that one these things is actually true?

[PeterMP]

We can only guess what meaningful contributions they would have made should they have applied their talents in other areas.

And who knows what meaningful contributions that Hitchens would have made if he'd not applied his talents to arguing there is no god.

The only constraint I propose here is not believing things unless there is a good reason to do so.

Looks like you are also bringing up some of our past disputes. Your claims about the history and our founding fathers are a misrepresentation deserving of another thread. I'll be happy to discuss it there if you like. Science can tell where vast majority of humans stand in relation to your bacterial life vs human life question.

That isn't the only constraint you apply because you do believe that it is (more) okay to kill bacteria than humans.

And the fact that most humans agree w/ it doesn't make it "right" or "better" in your mind.

The fact that most people used to believe that slavery was right didn't make it right, and if most people believe in a god isn't going to make it right.

And that is at the heart your problem and your limitation.

You fail to recognize that you generally do the same EXACT thing as people that believe in a god. You BELIEVE many things w/o good reasons (i.e. based on "testable claims").

And actually, you are behind many of us because many of us can see that, while you don't seem to be able to.

***EDIT**

(And let's be clear, this isn't the first time I've made this point to you. There have been multiple times in multiple threads where I have made the point that science can't tell you what is "good" or "better" in this sort of general context, and you have replied that science can tell you what most people want, and I've responded that you don't think what most people want (and certainly not at different points in time in history) was "good" or "better" in many cases so that "fallback" position is not a real position for you.

The fact that you continue to repeat the same argument, which is badly flawed, tells me much about your ability to incorporate new information on this topic.)

[Jumbo]

And people who have so "decided to believe", can not be convinced either. And if there's a choosing of limiting options on ways of accepting information as mentioned earlier by being in one camp, so there is in the other (which makes sense with any strong stance on anything to an extent).

A major stumbling block (one of many) is when either "believer" (in the tailgate it's usually "Christian" that would be the more complete term) or atheist tries to assert that there is an inherent flaw in only one side or the other in regard to their mutual but contradictory surety.

Zguy, your argument there is not much different than someone presenting a paper to the American Physical Society saying "There's an omniscient particle beyond the ones you know that accounts for all the mysterious actions you physicists can't explain via the particle behaviors that you do know. Now accept my statement on that and give me my award :pfft: because I choose to believe it and so do many others."

Another analogy would be to go back to Greece during the time of the Gods of Olympus and find there's someone quite sincere telling how people in the village saw Hercules clean the stables, and how the accounts are written and read everywhere, and how it's known to be so all over the civilized world, and how his adventures and miraculous deeds are way too detailed, verified, witnessed, and accepted by too many to be false, but still have those who say "no, I don't think so, because it is just all too far-fetched to pass my believability scale, and it doesn't make any sense to me--the whole "tasks" thing and these "personalities" these God seem to have."

Each side will seem quite reasonable to itself and likely have less positive regard for the other in many cases.

Keep in mind I am just spotlighting the dynamics of such beliefs and arguments and such here, not comparing a Christian God/religion to Hercules/Gods/Greek religions of the day in some "ranking of worth" manner. I want to make that clear since I well know how sensitive these things get. I have been having such discourse in many venues for over 50 years, and here since I joined. In fact, when I got here (to digress) Om & Die Hard and I would run many a long thread from the agnostic/atheist views and I'm betting Zguy remembers some of that---we also got to meet techboy around then and not long after many of us needed help suppressing the name William Lane Craig for having been beaten unmercifully into our cranium. :pfft:

I also should make it clear (again, knowing the turf) that IMO the "case for Christianity"---which has had at minimum 2000 years to be refined and has certainly done so from Constantine, to Calvinist, to post modernists, to Christian apologetics to Luther etc etc, to valid historical support for some matters, to much sophisticated adding of philosophical and scientifically-developed concepts in service to its rationale---is a much more credible body of beliefs by any reasonable standard than the Greek religions.

Now wanting to assert there are other ways of coming to believe something is "real" other than using scientific method or pure logic etc. is fine, as far as I'm concerned. One can assert anything, and the try their best to show why the assertion is logically or rationally reasonable (if they so desire) even if not part of some scientific method.

I understand the broader view alexy is coming from, but I don't share it to his degree. Nor would I be aligned with Christianity re: it's construct of God, among other things.

Back to the limiting options thing:

Deciding any of the following---scientific method; classical logic; rational and critical thinking forms; institution/insight; spiritual experiences; or any number of even more eclectic and creative approaches---is the only way to know something (let alone "believe" something) is indeed limiting.

A strong atheist (as I know the term) stance, just like a strong "anti-abortion" stance, reflects choices that are going to limit openness to opposing arguments if nothing else, especially as the issues are often much more emotionally charged (have deep/vital meaning to people) than many others, no matter what "side" you may favor. One might say, as an atheist, they are just being "demanding" of the type of argument they will be open to and are not going to accept any form of "magical thinking" as a valid response to how they prefer to frame the discussion, but I will let that sit there for now. That can be countered in the thread, when prompted, by whoever.

But the Christian has also made, not just one decision on the matter (of Godhood) that limits options, but a number of them.

It begins with the decision to believe that God exists, and then that God is the Christian construct of God, and then that the Christian religion is the true religion of God, and then there are the continuing "limiting" (in terms of knowledge that is likely to be accepted--i.e. the Book of Mormon is totally out) choices as to whether your Christianity takes the form of being Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Protestant, etc etc (and with whatever you regard as the--big or small--- differences therein).

I need to stop and this sin't even the tip of the iceberg. But that's one of the challenges with topics on religious beliefs and why I think it's part of a lifetime of exploration for many of us, no matter where we are in what we do or don't believe, or think, about these matters.

I'd like to see such conversations be conducted with as much careful thought and as little mutual irritation and as much mutual respect as possible, but I don't know why I should set such expectations on these topics considering how much less I would ever hope for in the political threads.

[PeterMP]

Deciding any of the following---scientific method; classical logic; rational and critical thinking forms; institution/insight; spiritual experiences; or any number of even more eclectic and creative approaches---is the only way to know something (let alone "believe" something) is indeed limiting.

A strong atheist (as I know the term) stance, just like a strong "anti-abortion" stance, reflects choices that are going to limit openness to opposing arguments if nothing else, especially as the issues are often much more emotionally charged (have deep/vital meaning to people) than many others, no matter what "side" you may favor. One might say, as an atheist, they are just being "demanding" of the type of argument they will be open to and are not going to accept any form of "magical thinking" as a valid response to how they prefer to frame the discussion, but I will let that sit there for now. That can be countered in the thread, when prompted, by whoever.

But the Christian has also made, not just one decision on the matter (of Godhood) that limits options, but a number of them.

It begins with the decision to believe that God exists, and then that God is the Christian construct of God, and then that the Christian religion is the true religion of God, and then there are the continuing "limiting" (in terms of knowledge that is likely to be accepted--i.e. the Book of Mormon is totally out) choices as to whether your Christianity takes the form of being Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Protestant, etc etc (and with whatever you regard as the--big or small--- differences therein).

I suspect much of this is a function of time and the number of people involved.

I'd be willing to bet if the population of atheists grows and in time, you'll see divisions in atheist and arguments over which set of "beliefs" are the most minimal/most supported and "most reasonable".

[Jumbo]

I suspect much of this is a function of time and the number of people involved.

I'd be willing to bet if the population of atheists grows and in time, you'll see divisions in atheist and arguments over which set of "beliefs" are the most minimal/most supported and "most reasonable".

Absolutely agree on the future diversity of agnosticism and atheism. I hadn't read the last exchange between you and alexy when I whipped out that epic (while having three great grand nieces chasing "whirly birds" across my floor---cripes, kids have cool toys these days). I hope you saw that South Park episode about the Atheist League. It was epic (like the Mormon episode, which was insulting to sensitivities, as you'd expect, but funnier than hell. Of course, most here know about my often questionable sense of humor.)