How do you reconcile Original Sin and Evolution?

[techboy]

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.

Well, okay then. I'll put the hammer back down.

[Jumbo]

Well, okay then. I'll put the hammer back down.

The quality of mercy is not strain'd :notworthy (unless you're a mod )

[alexey]

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

Absolutely. Same goes for Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and others. I guess we can agree that we all try to do the best that we can in the time that we have. Positions on these issues effect what we do, and being wrong leads to being less effective. This is why we both value the truth and try to get to it.

...

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").

...

How about a compromise. I will acknowledge a kind of an is-ought problem. Science can give us information, but humans still have to set goals, process the information, decide what to do, etc.

Up until this point you can say that I am generally doing the same thing as people that believe in a god. Further on, we diverge.

I think that we are on our own in figuring out what our goals should be. I think that this process should be democratic, it should have clear self-correcting mechanisms, it should be relatively open for revision, and it should rely on best available information.

[PeterMP]

I think that we are on our own in figuring out what our goals should be. I think that this process should be democratic, it should have clear self-correcting mechanisms, it should be relatively open for revision, and it should rely on best available information.

Essentially back to claming there are only two options.

I know lot's of Christians that support democratic processes, self-correcting mechansims (limits on powers and checks and balcnecs), that things should be revided and based on the best information (in fact ALL of the Christians I know do those things).

People might disagree on what the best information is, but I don't know anybody that doesn't think goals shouldn't be based on the best information.

Realistically, your thinking that we are figuring out what our goals is a belief, and it isn't a surprising belief given that your thoughts (and beliefs) are shaped by society.

A southerner fighting for the south at the time of the Civil War like "thought" the same.

[alexey]

Essentially back to claming there are only two options.

I know lot's of Christians that support democratic processes, self-correcting mechansims (limits on powers and checks and balcnecs), that things should be revided and based on the best information (in fact ALL of the Christians I know do those things).

People might disagree on what the best information is, but I don't know anybody that doesn't think goals shouldn't be based on the best information.

Realistically, your thinking that we are figuring out what our goals is a belief, and it isn't a surprising belief given that your thoughts (and beliefs) are shaped by society.

A southerner fighting for the south at the time of the Civil War like "thought" the same.

I am seeing an authoritarian "God wants it" opposition to gay marriage. I am seeing a coordinated opposition to knowledge in a religiously-motivated movement of Creationism. I am seeing multimillion dollar museums about Jesus riding dinosaurs... and I am NOT seeing any self-correcting measures being deployed against these ghastly practices.

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough or maybe I am not looking in the right place. I could be wrong in what I am seeing, but the political situation in the USA does suggest that I am onto something.

It seems that we are talking about different things. I am talking about problems that I am seeing. You are talking about Christians that you know. Well, maybe there would be nothing for me to talk about if majority of Christians were more like Christians that you know.

[Thiebear]

Not a true believer myself: I have no issue with the Big bang and God creating the Universe.

I have no issue with them using stories to teach in a time of little writings/schooling.

I have no issue with societies cropping up with a moral backbone, I WISH Islam had a New Testament for Egypt's sake now.

There are many a scientist way smarter than i am that can somehow reconcile both issues while working on fusion.

And it's none of my business what you believe in that head of yours

[skinsmarydu]

If you're saying that God banged the big bang, OK.

Cool. I'm a PK, and that's how I have to rationalize it. I know that science has proof for how we have evolved into upright-walking humans.

[PeterMP]

I am seeing an authoritarian "God wants it" opposition to gay marriage. I am seeing a coordinated opposition to knowledge in a religiously-motivated movement of Creationism. I am seeing multimillion dollar museums about Jesus riding dinosaurs... and I am NOT seeing any self-correcting measures being deployed against these ghastly practices.

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough or maybe I am not looking in the right place. I could be wrong in what I am seeing, but the political situation in the USA does suggest that I am onto something.

It seems that we are talking about different things. I am talking about problems that I am seeing. You are talking about Christians that you know. Well, maybe there would be nothing for me to talk about if majority of Christians were more like Christians that you know.

I see a bunch of people that are basing their ideas related to homosexuality based on what they consider to be the best evidence, but at the same time willing to work through and accept the results of democratic processes.

I suspect the vast majority of Christians are like those that I know, just as I suspect that most atheist aren't the unabomber.

How many multi-million dollar museums do you see about Jesus riding dinosaurs?

And when I look at you post I see a strong tendancy towards an authortarian system that strongly asserts that you and your opinions are right and that everybody else is wrong and needs to change (note, not the government needs to change, but individuals).

and I am NOT seeing any self-correcting measures being deployed against these ghastly practices.

Then your blind and don't pay much attention to what happens on this board on a regular basis.

[techboy]

Cool. I'm a PK

You're a PK? What's that?

I tried looking it up, but there are a lot of choices. Is it one of those? I'm kind of rooting for either a Rhodesian politician or an Iranian automobile.

*EDIT* I'm guessing preacher's kid, now. How boring.

[scruffylookin]

Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and other great intellectuals have been forced to focus on religion because they rightly have seen that the biggest impediment to human advancement is the species clinging to imaginary gods. Why shouldn't Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary scientist, fight the creationists? Out of "respect" for their belief? It's the religious loons who are trying to bring Jesus the Dinosaur Rider into our public schools, not Richard Dawkins bringing evolution to sunday school.

I for one can see no greater service to humanity than trying to stem the tide and "speak to stupid" in an effort to move us forward or at the very least, try to stop us from falling backwards a century or so.

It's a noble fight. Men like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens should be commended.

[skinsmarydu]

You're a PK? What's that?

I tried looking it up, but there are a lot of choices. Is it one of those? I'm kind of rooting for either a Rhodesian politician or an Iranian automobile.

*EDIT* I'm guessing preacher's kid, now. How boring.

It kinda was, but we spent some time in Lorton, actually! There were prison breakouts and whatnot then, has it changed?

[PeterMP]

People that misconstrue, confuse, and blur what science is and what it can tell us, what it can do, and have at their basis a un-scientific idea (i.e. that in general a belief in god is bad or an impedement to the "advancement" of humans or that it is likely that evolution isn't real and doesn't happen based on the scientific evidence that we have) should not be applauded or looked up to.

No matter what position they are trying to advance, in the long run, if they succeed, they will damage science and therefore human "advancement" irregardless of their short term goals and "success" they might have.

[techboy]

It kinda was, but we spent some time in Lorton, actually! There were prison breakouts and whatnot then, has it changed?

The prison was torn down several years ago. It's now an artist's colony, actually.

[alexey]

I see a bunch of people that are basing their ideas related to homosexuality based on what they consider to be the best evidence, but at the same time willing to work through and accept the results of democratic processes.

I suspect the vast majority of Christians are like those that I know, just as I suspect that most atheist aren't the unabomber.

How many multi-million dollar museums do you see about Jesus riding dinosaurs?

However, when I look at you post I see a strong tendancy towards an authortarian system that strongly asserts that you and your opinions are right and that everybody else is wrong.

Then your blind and don't pay much attention to what happens on this board.

There isn't much I can do against accusations of authoritarianism or blindness. My skepticism towards anecdotal evidence can be construed as authoritarian. My concerns about actions of some believers can be construed as blindness towards actions of other believers. Looks like we can just agree to disagree.

I think that concerns that I am voicing are not entirely groundless, and your reluctance (or utter refusal) to admit them and discuss them leaves me suspicious.

[PeterMP]

There isn't much I can do against accusations of authoritarianism or blindness. My skepticism towards anecdotal evidence can be construed as authoritarian. My concerns about actions of some believers can be construed as blindness towards actions of other believers. Looks like we can just agree to disagree.

I think that concerns that I am voicing are not entirely groundless, and your reluctance (or utter refusal) to admit them and discuss them leaves me suspicious.

I didn't say that they were groundless or that I wouldn't discuss them. In fact, I asked you a question.

Though that doesn't mean that you aren't missing the vast middle and in the process essentially creating a situation where you are implying there are only two options.

[alexey]

It's a noble fight. Men like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens should be commended.

Also Deniel Dennett, check him out if you are interested. He has tons of great material on youtube and in the library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomenon

[DjTj]

I am seeing an authoritarian "God wants it" opposition to gay marriage. I am seeing a coordinated opposition to knowledge in a religiously-motivated movement of Creationism. I am seeing multimillion dollar museums about Jesus riding dinosaurs... and I am NOT seeing any self-correcting measures being deployed against these ghastly practices.

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough or maybe I am not looking in the right place. I could be wrong in what I am seeing, but the political situation in the USA does suggest that I am onto something.

I think you're not looking hard enough, and you are part of the problem. When the focus is only on extremists on both sides, then our politics becomes more polarized, our dialogue becomes more combative, and it is more difficult to make progress.

It seems that we are talking about different things. I am talking about problems that I am seeing. You are talking about Christians that you know. Well, maybe there would be nothing for me to talk about if majority of Christians were more like Christians that you know.

The majority of Christians in the United States (like the majority of people in the United States) are moderate or apolitical. Organized churches have their own internal debates on all of these issues. It may be easier for extremists to be louder and more visible (because they are more unified), but don't mistake louder voices for more popular voices.

Our President is a Christian, and he shares none of the anti-gay or anti-science views you attribute to Christianity. Major churches in the United States are divided on the gay marriage issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/us/episcopalians-approve-rite-to-bless-same-sex-unions.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/us/gay-marriage-issue-divides-churches.html?pagewanted=all

There are many Christians who find their religion wholly compatible with evolution and are willing to engage with atheists like you and with fellow Christians to find common ground.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1555132,00.html

http://biologos.org/about

Attacking the extremists might be the easiest form of political rhetoric, and it is seems to be the chosen strategy of our politicians today, but I don't think it helps us to advance towards a future where science is more commonly understood and cultural diversity is more tolerated.

[alexey]

People that misconstrue, confuse, and blur what science is and what it can tell us, what it can do, and have at their basis a un-scientific idea (i.e. that in general a belief in god is bad or an impedement to the "advancement" of humans or that it is likely that evolution isn't real and doesn't happen based on the scientific evidence that we have) should not be applauded or looked up to.

...

Science can study the belief in God as a natural phenomenon.

---------- Post added August-31st-2012 at 12:20 PM ----------

I think you're not looking hard enough, and you are part of the problem. When the focus is only on extremists on both sides, then our politics becomes more polarized, our dialogue becomes more combative, and it is more difficult to make progress.

The majority of Christians in the United States (like the majority of people in the United States) are moderate or apolitical. Organized churches have their own internal debates on all of these issues. It may be easier for extremists to be louder and more visible (because they are more unified), but don't mistake louder voices for more popular voices.

...

Attacking the extremists might be the easiest form of political rhetoric, and it is seems to be the chosen strategy of our politicians today, but I don't think it helps us to advance towards a future where science is more commonly understood and cultural diversity is more tolerated.

I agree. The thing is, I am not focusing on extremists or any actual people. I am focusing on beliefs, ideas, and ways of thinking. Open discussion of these things will make extremists' mistakes apparent and help marginalize them.

Unfortunately I seem to run into a situation where believers value protection of beliefs in God over correction of mistakes (I could be way off, of course). Perhaps this is because according to some doctrines having faith is the number one priority.

[PeterMP]

Unfortunately I seem to run into a situation where believers value protection of beliefs in God over correction of mistakes (I could be way off, of course). Perhaps this is because according to some doctrines having faith is the number one priority.

I'd be curious for you to give us an example that you are running into. What mistake don't people to want to correct for? Why is it a mistake? How do you want to correct it? And why is that correction "correct"?

[Jumbo]

I pretty much agree with a lot of what DjTj stated, and it would be difficult, to put it mildly, to make a case of "why religion should be abolished." But most of alexy's important base positions as an assertive atheist, or "extremist"* if you like, are ones I don't see as "part of a problem." I think they (atheistic positions) are important matters of discussion and thought but it's a long hard road to being more accepted.

I think atheists are a minuscule and quite socially unpopular (and I find that a problem) minority, and all that applies in spades to activist atheists. It can be a very touchy thing to state flatly "there's no god" with the obvious implication (or openly stated) that a very dear and very personal core part of a believer's life is "wrong" and that all of the thinking/perception that has gone into it has been "incorrect" somehow, as can going for the "religion is more of a long-term detriment to man than an aid" thingy.

I think it might be analogous to how some non-Christians can feel when they know (or are openly told) the guy across from them thinks they're going to suffer eternally in some fashion because they don't believe the Christian faith, and so are "wrong" in the same way and with the same implications and then some!

Yet these matters (atheistic premises and the overall nature of religion) represent a whole body of very significant thoughts and ideas that have engaged many of the greatest minds throughout history. They were (are) deeply significant themes to those who are dedicated to man's search for knowledge, just as is the thinking behind a firm belief in God and belief in a religion. I know the "quiet" atheist is culturally much more tolerated in this very religious culture, even as the "fire-and-brimstone" fundie/creationist preacher is less approved of by the believer culture at large (though such preachers still may have a large enough following in various places, simply numerically).

But I think the actual process of questioning and examining the value of religion to man, or the existence and nature of a God, and all aspects of such, is not only appropriate and meaningful, but it has been going on for a long long time and will continue.

Here, it is best for all participating for it to be done without people getting pissy, being insulting, or too personal in disagreement.

*----though he's been more polite, and even conciliatory, social behavior-wise, than most "extremists" as I tend to find them, and I have seen him display more "listening" and reasonableness than my typical experience with extremists, even though he's as firm in his bottom line as any believer here so far. In fact, the more "pissy" personal-type comments have come from others to date, as have a roughly equal number of "silly" statements made in argument.

But, hell, the founder of this site was often a much more "militant" atheist than anyone here now when he was posting on the topic. I admit, not related to his atheism, that I love that guy. And the ES champion in that minuscule demographic, crazyhorse1, got booted for being a douche too often, and on more matters than atheism.

Ah, the sun is out, I have most of the day off, and it's a glorious day! I be outa here soon and down to Cape Disappointment on a quiet little boat.

[DjTj]

Yet these matters (atheistic premises and the overall nature of religion) represent a whole body of very significant thoughts and ideas that have engaged many of the greatest minds throughout history. They were (are) deeply significant themes to those who are dedicated to man's search for knowledge, just as is the thinking behind a firm belief in God and belief in a religion. I know the "quiet" atheist is culturally much more tolerated in this very religious culture, even as the "fire-and-brimstone" fundie/creationist preacher is less approved of by the believer culture at large (though such preachers still may have a large enough following in various places, simply numerically).

But I think the actual process of questioning and examining the value of religion to man, or the existence and nature of a God, and all aspects of such, is not only appropriate and meaningful, but it has been going on for a long long time and will continue.

I'll agree with this, and I do think that considering the atheist viewpoint is important and valuable, and may actually be a necessary step on the path to rational belief.

And I don't want to necessarily target *loud* atheists as a matter of style, but my problem with alexey's argument is that he is targeting extremist religious zealots, and using their misdeeds as a reason to dismantle all religion. When the problem may really be extremism and zealotry, not religion itself.

I agree. The thing is, I am not focusing on extremists or any actual people. I am focusing on beliefs, ideas, and ways of thinking. Open discussion of these things will make extremists' mistakes apparent and help marginalize them.

I think this thread has actually been pretty enlightening in that regard. Nobody has answered the poll question believing in a literal Adam, Eve, garden, serpent, and apple. This issue is pretty openly discussed among Christians, and very much posed in the same way as your original question in this thread.

I just stumbled upon a long series of posts from Andrew Sullivan discussing this precise issue:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/proof-of-the-fall.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/adam-and-eve-did-not-literally-exist-period-ctd.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/adam-and-eve-did-not-literally-exist-period-ctd-1.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/adam-and-eve-did-not-literally-exist-period-ctd-2.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-did-not-literally-exist-period-ctd.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/must-the-story-of-the-fall-be-true.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/must-the-story-of-the-fall-be-true-ctd.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/must-the-story-of-the-fall-be-true-ctd-1.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/must-the-story-of-the-fall-be-true-ctd-2.html

Unfortunately I seem to run into a situation where believers value protection of beliefs in God over correction of mistakes (I could be way off, of course). Perhaps this is because according to some doctrines having faith is the number one priority.

I do think that discussions like this can potentially expose mistakes in extremist thinking, but I feel like you are too quick to extrapolate your conclusions into a condemnation of religious thinking in general. Closed-minded and overly doctrinal thinking can exist with or without religion - for example, I think it pervades our current political debates about economics. And dogmatic secular philosophies can certainly be just as dangerous, even on the opposite side of the Genesis coin, where extreme beliefs about evolution can lead to eugenics.

If we want to expose the problem, I think it is in dogmatic, rigid, and inflexible thinking. And I find that both in and outside of organized religion.

[alexey]

I'd be curious for you to give us an example that you are running into. What mistake don't people to want to correct for? Why is it a mistake? How do you want to correct it? And why is that correction "correct"?

Well, one mistake would be to think that the original sin story describes actual events. I started this thread to discuss it. A while back I started a thread about another one - common misunderstanding of the term "atheist"... about how atheism, i.e. disbelief, is the default position towards all God claims. I remember having a lively discussion with you in there.

You and I have argued about these things many times. It seems that some basic level of agreement is required to have a productive discussion, I am not sure whether we have that.

[alexey]

...

I don't think discussions like this can help expose mistakes in extremist thinking, but I feel like you are too quick to extrapolate your conclusions into a condemnation of religious thinking in general. Closed-minded and overly doctrinal thinking comes with or without religion, and I think it pervades our current political debates about economics in ways largely unrelated to religion. And dogmatic secular philosophies can certainly be just as dangerous, even on the opposite side of the Genesis coin, where an extreme belief in evolution leads to eugenics.

If we want to expose the problem, I think it is in dogmatic, rigid, and inflexible thinking. And I find that both in and outside of organized religion.

My position on religion is not based on looking at religious extremism and extrapolating it. It is based on examining religions and belief in God as natural phenomena, and concluding that there is no good reason to think that they are true.

That's on a good day... on a bad day I think indoctrinating children and teaching them about eternal torture in hell is a form of child abuse. I also think that religion warps people's natural moral compass by making exceptions for immoral actions of God.

More over, I think that an open and honest conversation about beliefs in God and religion will necessarily lead more and more people to the same conclusion that I reached. Religion is a natural phenomenon that has outlived its usefulness in many areas. (I'm still down with stuff like cultural heritage, traditions, community, creative inspiration, etc)

[PeterMP]

Well, one mistake would be to think that the original sin story describes actual events. I started this thread to discuss it. A while back I started a thread about another one - common misunderstanding of the term "atheist"... about how atheism, i.e. disbelief, is the default position towards all God claims. I remember having a lively discussion with you in there.

You and I have argued about these things many times. It seems that some basic level of agreement is required to have a productive discussion, I am not sure whether we have that.

1. Nobody in this thread or polll has expressed a strong opinion that the original sin story describes actual events.

2. I don't believe that issues with regarding the term atheism have much of anything to do w/ the God or religion, but are tied to the defintion of the word in many common dictionaries. Generally, what you suggest as atheism has been commonly called agnostic. In terms of God and religion, I think the difference is inconsequential (whether people replace the word atheist in their every day vocabulary with agnostic, and then give agnostic a slightly new defintion).

If those are your issues, it doesn't seem like you really have issues with this respect to the population of Christians here with respect to God and religion.

You might have issues with respect to dictionary publishers through much of the 20th century, and a few hard headed people like myslef that don't like to see words change defintions from ther common societal use (and I can show you posts where I've made some of the same comments/complaints w/ respect to the word conservative before you started your thread for the reasons I outlined in that thread if you like.)

---------- Post added August-31st-2012 at 02:47 PM ----------

That's on a good day... on a bad day I think indoctrinating children and teaching them about eternal torture in hell is a form of child abuse. I also think that religion warps people's natural moral compass by making exceptions for immoral actions of God.

Your beliefs.

[DjTj]

My position on religion is not based on looking at religious extremism and extrapolating it. It is based on examining religions and belief in God as natural phenomena, and concluding that there is no good reason to think that they are true.

That's on a good day... on a bad day I think indoctrinating children and teaching them about eternal torture in hell is a form of child abuse. I also think that religion warps people's natural moral compass by making exceptions for immoral actions of God.

I think that on my bad days, I worry more about amorality justified by profit and survival of the fittest.

More over, I think that an open and honest conversation about beliefs in God and religion will necessarily lead more and more people to the same conclusion that I reached. Religion is a natural phenomenon that has outlived its usefulness in many areas. (I'm still down with stuff like cultural heritage, traditions, community, creative inspiration, etc)

I have found that talking about it more has drawn me closer to Christ, and I have been more satisfied with the kinds of answers provided by people like Peter, tb, or LKB in these threads, as opposed to the arguments you have offered. Of course, it may just stem from a kind of defensive pack mentality when feeling under tack, which is an evolutionary trait of a social species.