Follower of Christ, I didn't say that the theory of evolution horrifies me, but that it horrifies you. Genesis and the theory of evolution are two completely contradictory things. If one is true, the other is necessarily false. Many facts have refuted Genesis, and many others have confirmed the theory of evolution. Logically, Genesis is therefore false, and with it, probably the entire Bible. A Christian who believes in the theory of evolution and in Genesis is lying to himself; you can't believe something and its opposite. That's why the theory must surely create a feeling of horror in you. When I talk about fossils, I'm not asking how these remains got to us, but rather what their discovery implies. Among the fossils, we have found skeletons of humans with characteristics not entirely identical to modern humans. Neanderthals occupied Europe and Asia from 430,000 to 40,000 years ago. According to you, it was the flood that wiped them out? Were Neanderthals also children of Adam and Eve? It's surprising that you mention this flood story, which clearly demonstrates the cruelty of your God of love. He's going to engulf all of humanity and all the animals to create a new life from the descendants of Noah and a few pairs of animals. The aftermath will show him he was wrong because, some time later, humanity will fall back into its old ways. This story doesn't hold water; you have to be mentally manipulated to believe it. What does it mean to accept Jesus Christ? I'm not going to deny that he existed historically, but his miracles and resurrection are far from credible. Calling him both God and man at the same time is even more absurd. He may have preached love between humans in the name of a God he was supposed to represent, a God who was never very loving toward his creatures. You're free to believe absurd legends if it makes you a better and happier person. For my part, I try to think based on real facts, or at least highly probable ones. I know it's not very fun.
I am also a Christian and I believe both in scientific explanation of evolution and in God and there is nothing insane in it. If we believe that God is omnipotent I don't see why it's absurd to believe He can't be both a man and a God. But I think it's the other topic. I have already answered the original question in my previous post.
Follower of Christ, I didn't say that the theory of evolution horrifies me, but that it horrifies you. Genesis and the theory of evolution are two completely contradictory things. If one is true, the other is necessarily false. Many facts have refuted Genesis, and many others have confirmed the theory of evolution. Logically, Genesis is therefore false, and with it, probably the entire Bible. A Christian who believes in the theory of evolution and in Genesis is lying to himself; you can't believe something and its opposite.
Your comment is at very least 30 years outdated. There is a long standing tradition in Christianism consisting in not reading the Genesis as a scientific textbook, but as a theological narrative. Said differently, the Genesis is not read in a way that explains the evolution of life/biology through mechanisms, but in a way that gives a theological truth about Creation, the origin of life and specifically souls/humans, what a person is... through symbolism and literarism. Note that those are ultimate explanations.
If this is respected, and if Evolution is not read with a materialistic view in which spirit/mind is reduced as a collateral effect for instance (this is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one), then both the theory of Evolution and religion are not incompatible.
This is, said a bit differently, what John Paul II explained in 1996 (thus 30 years ago), making a clear distinction between religion and science while claiming that the theories of Evolution are "more than a hypothesis".
I invite you to read his speech, for it simply is contradicting your whole claim. You could find it on this link from Hominide.com, a science-mediation website of relatively good quality with plethora of article written by researchers.
Would you tell here that the former pope, and Saint for Catholics, was not believing in Genesis?
I'm a little disappointed that Follower-of-Christ hasn't responded. It's certainly not easy to find logical explanations for absurd dogmas. I'm willing to believe that my comments are outdated, but for now, there's no clear answer, and the issue remains relevant. The Church, in general, has been forced to adapt to the revelations made by scientific discoveries; otherwise, it would certainly be seen as a backward organization with no reason to exist. Initially, when Darwin finally dared to publish his research, the Church loudly denounced the abomination of this diabolical idea of evolution, which places humans on the same level as other living species on the planet. In other times, such statements would have earned the condemnation of being burned alive at the stake in a public square, which would have discouraged people from asking questions, but unfortunately for the Church, those days were over. How can we accept any complementarity between two opposing versions of the creation of the world? On one hand, instantaneous genesis with a perfect world; on the other, slow evolution over billions of years. It takes considerable mental gymnastics to reconcile the two. I think all believers are in denial and continue to believe because thinking that an omnipotent and benevolent being watches over them, rewarding the virtuous and punishing the wicked, is reassuring in the face of life's vicissitudes. John Paul II may have said that evolution is more than a hypothesis, but he didn't go so far as to say it's a truth. Maintaining ambiguity on this subject is the only strategy that allows the Catholic Church and religions in general to endure. If this former Pope didn't believe in Genesis, did he believe in the rest of the Old Testament, where various absurdities and horrors are part of the word of God? If we accept the concept of evolution, the major tenets of Christian philosophy, such as "original sin," become a baseless myth. This implies that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross was pointless. Furthermore, I have never understood how his death saved anyone.
Anil, atheism is probably one of the most rational viewpoint one can hold, but anticlericalism can also turns into a dogma and, in your belief, you are ommiting a lot of details.
You are once again assuming that the Church and believers take the Bible for a scientific textbook, while it's very often not the case. That the Church didn't promote scientific research itself, in desire to find God and confirmation of their beliefs.
Similarly, you claim that scientists would get burn at the stake solely because their research went against the Bible. I'm not sure this happened even during the strongest moment of the inquisition... Gelileo for example was initially "friend" with the pope, got a lot of support from the Church, and his condemnation had more to do with political game than heliocentrism properly speaking - the intial refusal for his work being 'I think it's not supported enough" (I caricature, but I won't make that novel longer).
It's forgetting that many scientists were supported by the Church or directly emerged from the Clergy; again, Catholicism never has been "just" this dark anti-knowledge institution described nowadays, without any nuance. It sure has been reluctant to some discoveries and changes, but it also has promoted many research like I just said, saved some others etc. The reality is much more nuanced than a plain " Church = dark age".
On Darwin specifically, you are vastly exaggerating what happened. Darwin was worried about controversy, but a lot of delays can also be blamed on Darwin being a perfectionnist turtle.
It seems particularly unfair to say that "The Church" labeled his work as "abomination" or "diabolical". The "Church" (Vatican) never condemned publicly the Theory of Evolution, and if some religious leaders firmly opposed it, some others accepted it quickly when faced with the arguments and observations provided by Darwin. That's aprticularly the case in Britain, where the Anglican Church was mixed...
Again, a good bunch of the scientific community back then also belonged to the Clergy. Most often, opponent actually engaged in honest and serious discussion with Darwin. A very famous opponent to Darwin until his death is actually Jean Henri Fabre, an eminent enthomologist who, despite being religious, yes, wasn't a member of the clergy himself (and interestingly, that didn't prevetn Darwin and Fabre from becoming friends).
I also have to bring another correction: The work of Darwin never placed Humans and other species at the same level. It stated that we had a common ancestor; but not that humans were morally equals to other species. Darwin himself had ideas you would find very questionable about some ethnicities (my guy, even him can't be always right)...
How can we accept any complementarity between two opposing versions of the creation of the world? On one hand, instantaneous genesis with a perfect world; on the other, slow evolution over billions of years.
I already said that in my previous post; Genesis and Evolution are not incompatible and Darwin himself believed that both are perfectly fine together. Evolution is how life changes over time, not about its origins. Again, it depends on your reading of the Bible, but yours is only allowing a literal view of it, which is not the most common view in Christianism nowadays.
I would also add a small note: Evolution is not always slow and can potentially get really fast over a few thousand years. There are a few details and models, hypotheses... ongoing in the field in this regard, the one I mentionned here being the "punctuated equilibrium" model.
John Paul II may have said that evolution is more than a hypothesis, but he didn't go so far as to say it's a truth. Maintaining ambiguity on this subject is the only strategy that allows the Catholic Church and religions in general to endure.
I believe you are mistaken here. What is implied in John Paul II speech is that Evolution is a scientific theory; hence the best model to explain what we observe in absence of something better. His "better than hypothesis", alongside with the rest of his speech, shows clearly his understanding of the scientific vocabulary.
If this former Pope didn't believe in Genesis, did he believe in the rest of the Old Testament, where various absurdities and horrors are part of the word of God?
Circling... but it seems I got my response. If the Pope admits Evolution, then, in your mind, he can't believe in Genesis despite being the Pope.
-------------------------
It looks like it's impossible for you to fathom that religious are not necessarily reading the Bible in a literal way. Just because you have a literal reading of a text doesn't mean everyone has to be like you, Anil, and this is a dogmatic view too.
There are still some oversimplifications I made, but eh... I guess it's good enough and I suppose i should stop here or it will be repetitive
Thank u very much everybody who is posting in this forum!! 🙏❤️🙏 I have hesitated a lot because normally if i make a forum i try to react a lot and write back if somebody writes but this time i am not really sure each time what i should write back. And also i dont want to maybe make mistakes if i maybe misunderstand some of the things and that maybe it starts an argument. And with a LOTTT im not sure what i should write back or think about it yet so that is why.
But i am really thankful a lot to everybody who makes it super interesting and that everybody can say what they want in a nice way and everybody respects each other. 😊🥰
And i dont mean to interrupt what everybody above writes about!! Sorry if it disturbs!!!! 🙄🙄😬
When people read Bible as an ordinary book then misunderstandings happen. When reading Bible, the reader should think about historical context (2000 years ago people expressed themselves much differently than today), the languages used by Jesus and by Bible (very complex and with a lot of changes because of a timespan of 2 millenium). For example, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and languages which are used in Bible are Hebrew and Greek. How many of you are familiar with these languages? A lot of people aren't even familiar with Latin, the language of Vulgata version. Also, Bible without proper studying can't be understood properly - there is a special study in Rome completelly dedicated to the Bible. The Bible should not be taken literally and it's the stand which Catholic Church holds and has held through the history. Taking the Bible literally is a fideism which is a form of fanatism.
An example for all of this: in Bible it is written that Eve is created from Adam's rib. Despite explicitly stating it was a rib, they were talking about a heart. Why? Because ancient Hebrew medicine was primitive and they didn't open the bodies. They felt and understood that something is moving under the skin and they tought it was the rib, but it was a heart. Just one example how historical differences are very large in 2000 year interval. Another example is this: in Bible it's not written that driving 200 km/h through populated place is a sin. Does that mean it isn't a sin? Of course not - at the time Bible was written, the cars didn't exist.
Speaking about evolution and science, do you know who is the author of the Big Bang Theory (actual theory, not the tv show)? His name is Georges Lemaitre. Oh no, he was a Christian 😱! Oh no, he was a Catholic😱! Oh no, he was a priest😱! How is that even possible?????
A few other scientists who were Christians:
Antonio Volta - he prayed the Rosary often
Andre Marie Ampere
Gregor Mendel - oh no, another scientist who was also a priest 😱
Ruđer Bošković - oh no, another priest among scientists 😱
Max Planck - his first wife and 4 of his 5 children have died before him and he was still believeing in God regardless of those tragedies. Something to think about.
Louis Pasteur - when his student asked him how he can believe in God after so much thinking, his response was: ' a lot of thinking is the reason why I believe in God' (or something like that, I am just a stupid Catholic and I don't know the exact translation nor I care, you get the point of the quote)
James Clerk Maxwell - his quote: 'I have looked into the most philosophical systems and have found none that will not work without God.'
All of these scientists were top experts. Something to think about.
➡️ Do you think there is life after death? Why, or why not? Bonus critical thinking challenge: Give the reasons/evidences you trust your belief over others.
It's fascinating to see how seriously everyone is discussing this. I don't have a philosophical or scientific perspective, so my views are quite plain. When I was young, I believed in an afterlife and ghosts. However, as I grew older, I came to believe that such things do not exist. After my grandparents and parents passed away, I longed to see them again, but I have never seen them, nor have they appeared in my dreams. Since my mother passed, perhaps because I am so busy, I find myself on the verge of forgetting even the memories of the past. I am just trying my best to live in the present, and I have no time to think about what happens after death. I suspect that my youthful belief in those things was simply a product of my youth. I believe that life is all there is, and when we die, it is the end.
We are a Shinto family. In Japan, the deceased are cremated, and only a small portion of the bones are placed in a grave. Seeing those bones, scorched by the intense heat of the cremation, I felt a sense of sadness, yet also beauty. Perhaps the afterlife does exist after all. It may just be that I have no time to think about it right now. I think I will try to make some time to slow down and reflect on it. It might be that I simply lack the emotional space at the moment.
Lianshen, I see that you're following in the footsteps of modern Christians who no longer see any incompatibility between Genesis and science. It's surely a way for you to have a clear conscience. In the Bible, there are certainly texts that can be taken literally; they are full of good advice, love, and common sense. Others require interpretation to be acceptable, and still others that no priest would ever dare read during a ceremony because of their appalling stupidity or cruelty. A dogma is a point of doctrine considered a fundamental and indisputable truth. For my part, my only dogmas are proven scientific truths, which isn't the case in religions where dubious claims must be considered true and indisputable under penalty of excommunication or worse. The so-called original sin is one such example. Regarding Galileo, you're misinformed. He escaped being burned at the stake because he recanted his discoveries; however, Giordano Bruno did indeed perish, burned alive for maintaining his ideas despite torture. Yes, Darwin waited a long time to publish his discoveries. He had received a religious education and was torn between his conclusions and the teachings he had been given. He was fully aware of the consequences of this revolutionary assertion for the time. I don't deny that the theory of evolution can be used to promote racist ideas, but I'm simply stating the facts: To obtain humans, a ruthless selection process was necessary, allowing only the fittest to survive and reproduce. We are the result of this process. If God exists, perhaps it's because he wanted it to be this way, but in that case, God might not be so good after all.
Like I said, any further comment would only consist in repeating myself in hope it gets read with good will and understood. I will just end this by saying that "my only dogma are provent scientific truths" say enough things here. Thankfully, you are not a scientist or that would be concerning...
@Yue_ @Stella1004 I don't think you have to be sorry or feel any restraint sharing your opinion. Most of us here are just monkeys throwing random words. We will never rewrite Hamlet.
I think it was, on the contrary,interesting to see your viewpoint rooted in personal experience and changing with life events rather than religion or philosophical thoughts.