• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Is that what "movement atheism" is? Ant uses that phrase to refer to some kind of atheist organization/community.
Ant has a phantom chip on his shoulder. I did a google search for atheism in the classroom. There was the article I linked, then some teachers in Florida in 2010. The article I linked makes a pretty good argument that if the classroom topic is biology, there's an elephant in the room. Some sort of Talk is better made than left unsaid.

I'd like to hear ant's arguments for why this Professor's "Talk" should not be allowed.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
bionov
Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:14 pm
11
Location: Sierra Foothills, CA
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

VATICAN CITY, Oct 28, 2014
Addressing a meeting of the Pontificial Academy of Sciences, an independent body housed in the Vatican and financed largely by the Holy See, Pope Francis said scientific explanations for the world did not exclude the role of God in creation.
"The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to something else, but it derives directly from a supreme principle that creates out of love," he said.
"The 'Big Bang', that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God, on the contrary it requires it," he said.
"Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of (divine) creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve," the pope said.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

That's incredible. The goalposts for the Vatican have now retreated to the beginning of the universe. I wonder how they parse that with the bible. Is the bible to be considered entirely metaphorical then?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of (divine) creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve
Has the Church, or any Christian thinker for that matter, answered the question of how to reconcile the idea of a human soul with the fact that there was never a first human? Species evolved gradually into modern humans.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Dexter wrote:
Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of (divine) creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve
Has the Church, or any Christian thinker for that matter, answered the question of how to reconcile the idea of a human soul with the fact that there was never a first human? Species evolved gradually into modern humans.
In my experience, the Catholic Church tends to ignore most of the Bible, and they'll ignore conundrums like this as well. You're just trying to stir up trouble by pointing to glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the Holy Bible. Who are the modern day theologians anyway? Seems to me like a difficult job.

Christians have no problem cherry-picking the good stuff. They like to have their cake and eat it too, treating the Bible as a sacred text while ignoring all the irrelevant stuff. Sam Harris has been criticized for his recent appearance on Bill Maher (with Ben Affleck) where he suggests that Muslims needs to ignore the barbaric passages of their Holy Book just as Christians do. The problem with the Koran is that it's actually a much more unified text than the Bible and, thus, Islam is far more resistant to reformation than Christianity.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can- ... rom-itself
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Dexter wrote:
Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of (divine) creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve
Has the Church, or any Christian thinker for that matter, answered the question of how to reconcile the idea of a human soul with the fact that there was never a first human? Species evolved gradually into modern humans.
Though the Pope accepts evolution, he also says that the emergence of humans was a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap."

So there you go. Quandary solved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... d/?hpid=z9
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

The stance is taken from the 1996 papal essay "Truth cannot contradict Truth."

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

"...If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say....


Emphasis mine.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

The Pope doesn't say exactly when the soul came into existence, but I'd guess it was about the time the Neanderthals died out about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. You can see how having a soul would give early humans a survival advantage.

So there was a first human after all. Take that, Dawkins!
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

geo wrote:The Pope doesn't say exactly when the soul came into existence, but I'd guess it was about the time the Neanderthals died out about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. You can see how having a soul would give early humans a survival advantage.

So there was a first human after all. Take that, Dawkins!
You'd think that would be an important detail to mention in the Bible. "Oh by the way, the first dude to get a soul was about 50,000 years ago, call him Soul Man." Not to mention The Big Man could have at least hinted about the whole evolution thing, it's a pretty important fact about all those animals that were talked about.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:Robert, I really really appreciated this post! It is one of your best in recent days. Just a few quick thoughts... (and I apologize that I cannot always contribute in-depth responses but managing BookTalk.org takes up about 75% of my time on the site while actually contributing accounts for 23%. The last 2% involves just sitting, staring and crying. j/k)
Just to return the compliment Chris, I really appreciate all your great work with booktalk. It is a superb website. Hope you are keeping well.
Chris OConnor wrote:
Robert wrote:Creationists are a corrupt disgrace.
It doesn't take much imagination to see how words like this could bring out the worst sort of response from our resident Creationists. I do understand and agree that Creationism is ___________________ (this line intentionally left blank) but "corrupt disgrace" is hardly going to elicit a warm and civil response.
Interbane noted earlier in this thread that I was ironically turning Christian ideas against the conventional creationist theology. This comment was intended in that light as well, so I should explain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man explains that Christians conventionally “believe that the fall brought sin into the world, corrupting the entire natural world, including human nature, causing all humans to be born into original sin, a state from which they cannot attain eternal life without the grace of God.”

My use of the terms corrupt and disgrace referenced this idea that before the fall, the world was in a state of grace, but the disobedience of Adam and Eve caused the fall into a state of corruption. The problem with creationism is that it believes that Christ freed Christians from Adam’s sin (see Ransom Theory for details). This means that believers in Young Earth Creationism (ie the story of Adam) think they are living in a state of grace, whereas unbelievers are in a state of corruption. So on this old view, belief in evolution is intrinsically corrupt, because it removes the saving power of Christ by denying the historical myth of the fall from grace.

In reality, believing delusions cannot be truly called living in a state of grace. In this technical Biblical sense, error is a product of the corruption of the flesh.

Saint Paul provides some helpful guidance on this technical concept of corrupt disgrace at Galatians 6:8: “he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”

Exegeting this, creationists could readily imagine that believing in evolution falls under the rubric of ‘he that soweth to his flesh’, whereas creationism is for those who ‘soweth to the spirit’. So they frame the debate to say they are in a state of grace because Christ saves believers, interpreting John 3:16 to say believing in Christ also means believing in Adam.

Sorry for the extended theological comment, but I know that my phrase ‘corrupt disgrace’ would not immediately make everyone think of this dogmatic traditional technical meaning of the states of grace and corruption, which I am showing here is absurd, immoral and false.

I imagine some might associate ‘corrupt disgrace’ with episodes like Jimmy “I have sinned” Swaggart, but I take the view that systematic blinkering as practiced by creationism is corrupt and disgraceful in the Biblical sense of being grounded in the way of the flesh rather than the way of the spirit.
Chris OConnor wrote: I think most atheists I know personally [are…] not wanting to silence believers but we want it considered socially acceptable to challenge any and all beliefs. Religion is given a free "Get out of Jail" card for some strange and unhealthy reason. Beliefs are off-limits when it comes to critical inquiry. And this is ridiculously dangerous. It is so dangerous that I would not be surprised if this practice of "respecting beliefs" eventually leads to the end of our species.
Thanks Chris, that is a great illustration of how the scientific method of a focus on evidence and logic is morally superior to the creationist method of a focus on tradition and authority. I am interested by your observation of how spooked people are about talking about religion. I certainly think that you are correct, since in my experience the sort of discussion here is extremely rare.

If you look at atheist material, most of it lacks detailed awareness of and sympathy for critical theology. Atheists tend either to be scientists who were never interested in theology and church, or converts from fundamentalism who view Christianity in all its uncritical corrupt goriness. My own background in philosophical theology is something that I find just gets no traction anywhere.
Chris OConnor wrote: Unchallenged crap thinking is like allowing a totally curable disease to flourish even though we have a known cure.
Yes, creationism is a pathology like cancer. If we ignore it the disease just gets worse. Faith that blinds itself to critical thinking is highly dangerous.
Chris OConnor wrote: critical thinking can lead most people to the same conclusion when it comes to the subject of what is right vs. what is wrong. The only times I see critical thinking not working is when the mind is infected with religious dogma.
That is a really important point regarding the basic difference between science and religion. Science does not accept any claims that don’t stack up against evidence. More and more, I see a commitment to evidence as a central ethical principle. Against the more usual meaning of corrupt, it is generally seen as corrupt to fail to base decisions on the best available evidence.
Chris OConnor wrote:
Robert wrote:I don’t think people can really be happy, ie flourish, until they live in a community with a shared vision.

I disagree. But we might not be too far off on this one so I'll explain. I think this "shared vision" has traditionally been how groups of people have been controlled and motivated by charismatic leaders. Whether the leader be a religious leader or a political leader, the method of control is by getting everyone to think similarly and not-so-coincidentally to think the same way the charismatic leader (or holy book) says they should think.
The great thing about the USA as a secular republic is that its shared vision of human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is so simple and so universal. It is like these ideas fade into the wallpaper, and are not seen in the same light as other forms of ‘shared vision’ that are more outrageous and controversial, like the Ten Commandments. Great enlightened Presidents such as Washington and Jefferson gave the USA an amazing foundation. By putting freedom of speech and similar values into the Constitution, they specifically insisted that their shared vision included a commitment to liberty and tolerance of diversity. Of course there is a steady cancerous undermining of these rational enlightened philosophical values by you know who.
Chris OConnor wrote: Don't get me wrong. I think getting people to join together and work towards a common goal, such as world/community peace, stability and prosperity is awesome. We're stronger together. The whole is better if the parts work together and towards a shared vision. But make no mistake individuals can prosper and be extremely happy with or without a shared goal. Filthy rich people can be extremely generous or disgustingly selfish and, either way, be quite happy. I see it in my line of work every single day. I see such wealth and no apparent concern for anyone other than immediate family.
Part of the shared vision of capitalism was expressed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations with the following famous statement: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens.”

So here we see a paradox in the idea that capitalism has a shared vision, because its vision consists precisely in liberty, in being freed from the shackles of dogma.
Chris OConnor wrote: So I'm all for pushing the idea that we all need to share a vision but the brighter and/or amoral people know this is false and a control mechanism. I choose to be nice, moral, unselfish and socially conscious because I want to live in a society where we all care for one another to some degree. But happiness can be obtained in many different ways including by being quite selfish, unhelpful and assholish. What I'm trying to say is that society, as a whole, benefits and maximizes its potential, when we have a shared vision. But individuals do not necessarily attain their own personal highest level of happiness by working towards the greater good. Selfishness often works very well towards personal happiness.
I would class veneration for the Declaration of Independence as a type of faith or myth. I understand that people’s hackles rise at that, because I define myth as ‘a story that gives meaning to life’’, rather than the usual definition of ‘an untrue belief’. We don't see our own faith as blind or mythical, only the faith of others. But I think the great fortune of the USA rests on this faith in great principles of human rights, which are genetically amenable to reason and freedom.

People naturally see ‘shared vision’ as presenting the risk of social control. I think that creationism falls squarely into that boat, given the way pastors control their flock by insulating them from the world. But again, the irony here is that the core values of Jesus Christ expressed in the Bible are all about respect for diversity.

The big ideas of Christ are to love your neighbour as you love yourself, and to treat the least important people in the world as the most important. I consider those principles set a valuable path for social evolution towards peace and prosperity. They are completely incompatible with the idea that Christianity is all about enforcing assent to a share dogma such as creationism.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”