God & Evolution - Does one disprove the other?

[JS_Princeton]

Perhaps, to get back to the OP, we need to evaluate closely what the “God” and “evolution” terms actually mean.

If we want to posit that “God” is the literal God of the Hebrew and Christian Old Testament bibles, then “evolution” disproves that God’s specific actions. This is fairly rigorous proof (not ontological but scientific) as we have evidence up the wazoo for

a) a different order to Creation than is posited in Genesis 1
b) human origins that are different than Genesis 1
c) at the most literal level, there is a different mechanism for creation than described in Genesis 1 (and by mechanism I do not mean spiritual mechanism, but physical mechanism)

However, no one ever said that one must believe in the most literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to believe in God. There are plenty of interprertations of Genesis 1 that allow for the existence of a god without contradicting those theories for which science has established evidence in support.

What needs to be distinguished then are two kinds of attributes given to gods. One is the attribute of spiritual omnipotence. This is totally uncorporeal and influences the “soul” and other noetic or non-material objects in the Universe. Of course, there are things that are thought initially to be non-corporeal that are becoming grounded in the physical world, but that is a digression. We know, for now, that there is a realm of non-physical abstract reality that science cannot touch because it is unobservable by all except the subjective audience. Without data, no conclusion can be made about the “spiritual realm”. Fine, if such a god exists, it can exist completely independent from the physical world.

However, there is another attribute of a god that is physical power: i.e. the ability to enact change in physical history. This is where things get dicey. Science derives natural laws that explain in a self-consistent manner how things occur. Primal cause is an issue for the philosophers, but not for the scientist. This is why so many Age of Reason folk were Deists, because there is a self-consistent solution to the present-day world that is explainable using the laws of science and mathematics. There is no need to appeal to a god to explain storms, to explain diseases, to explain the varieties of life on the planet. They can be appealed to in other ways. Frankly, when the majority of the most popular of today’s formulations of God were made, nobody ever expected such explanations would be available (well, the Greeks did… maybe). In any case, a god acting in history is a physical event which has never been scientifically observed. Many theists would contend that science bends over backwards to explain away the evidence for miracles. Skeptics in the scientific community argue exactly the opposite. No matter what camp you fall into, the ultimate conclusion that you reach about the manner in which a god is ALLOWED to act in the natural world is equal to how much contradiction a god that acts in history is to scientific laws (specifically here, evolution). If you allow your God to only act within the laws of science (similar to Deism) then there is no problem. If you wish to say that your god can do things that go against scientific laws, then there is a problem. E.g., if your god is able to instantaneously turn dust into a living human, then your god is in contradiction to the laws of science. This is actually a much deeper question than whether a god is in conflict with just evolution. This is a question of whether a god is in conflict with a formalized scientific world that does not appeal to any supernatural influence in order to explain phenomenon.

[Meatros]

JS-the op’er said that god was a generic supernatural entity, I believe he wanted to debate the general idea, not a specific entity.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Lord Ashtar *
**Ben, it seems to me you wish to discuss something other than what I put forward in the OP. If you would like to discuss whether or not Christianity is logical, please start another thread.

**

Like I said, you asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you honestly.

**
Sigh…

1.) Not everyone on this board, just you.

**

Back it up or back it down.

**
2.) No, I don’t believe he is a liar.

**

Why not?

**
3.) Irrelevant, and no, I’m not. I have decided that I am not interested in the subject. Take that as you will, but I decided that that information is simply not vital to my life.

**

Why were you so interested in it before?

**4.) I don’t really feel that is relevant to this OP. I have asked whether or not the ideas of a supernatural creator and evolution can coexist. I’m not refering to the Christian God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, the Jewish Jehova, the Muslum Allah, the Buddah, or any other specific god. **

Oh, well, in that case, there’s clearly no contradiction. Anyone can see that a watchmaker God could have created the universe and left it to its own devices.

[Liberal]

Just as an aside, would you mind telling me what [pantheism] does mean?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a simplistic but essentially accurate description of pantheism. It says, in part:

Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) “God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature” (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a “unity” and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) “‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.”

Despite attempts by Schopenhauer and others to redefine pantheism, it is merely a nonanthropomorphized or impersonal theological interpretation. As Stanford points out:

Schopenhauer’s criticism fails because he equivocates on the terms central to his argument. The meanings of both Unity and divinity involved in the pantheistic claim that there exists an all-inclusive divine Unity are different than the senses Schopenhauer attributes to the world and God in his criticism. The pantheist does not mean what Schopenhauer means by God, and the “all-inclusive unity” in pantheism is not another word for the “world” as he uses it (i.e. everything). The interpretation of “world” Schopenhauer attributes to pantheists is not what they mean when they describe it as a Unity.

Taoism is one good example of a pantheistic philosophy.

[Lord_Ashtar]

*Originally posted by Ben *
Like I said, you asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you honestly.

And I appreciate that. I just think that perhaps what you would like to debate is not exactly what I started this forum to debate about. It’s just a little off topic. I (and I’m sure at least a few other people) would be happy to debate the topic of whether or not Christianity is logical in another forum.

Back it up or back it down.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Why not?

His facts may or may not be off. I do not know enough about evolutionary biology to decide this one way or the other. However, I do not think that he is intentionally trying to deceive people, which is what would make him a liar in my mind.

Why were you so interested in it before?

I was never really interested in debating the nuances of evolution in the last thread I started (if you check the OP, you will see this to be the truth). I just got sidetracked (which, incidentally, I would like to avoid in this thread, as I like the topic and feel we have some good, intelligent people chiming in with their opinions).

**Oh, well, in that case, there’s clearly no contradiction. Anyone can see that a watchmaker God could have created the universe and left it to its own devices. **

My thoughts exactly.

[tracer]

*Originally posted by liirogue *
My personal belief is that God is the one in charge of evolution… There are too many coincidences for everything to have just happened the way it has, at least in my mind.

“… imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

– Douglas Adams, speech at Digital Biota 2

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Number one, a substantive denial of any positive ontological proposition is a fallacy. What is meant by the word “God” is irrelevant. The fallacy has nothing to do with the tableaux that I’ve presented; it is generally a fallacy in any discourse.
**

Only if you adopt your modal logic, and your idea that the thing is possible. Possibly (A and ~A) is false, so I am right to substantively deny it. It’s only your own assurances that you ever provided in those threads that stated proposition G was possible.

**

Number two, I don’t think you understand what pantheism means. It doesn’t mean “there is no God; there is only the material universe”.

**

It certainly means there is no uppercase “G” god, there is nothing like the type of god being discussed in this thread.

**
Number three, I’ve seen only a couple of the “bright minds” who were conversant with either ontology or logic. I’m a bright mind, but I don’t think my opinions on physics matter much.

Number four, I am not “driving through”. I responded to an assertion that Christianity is illogical. I also am responding to you.

**

Responding to a claim that Christianity is illogical by saying “hard atheism is illogical”? Unless Christianity and hard atheism became an exclusive-or statement when I wasn’t looking, that’s totally a non sequitur. Pretty piss-poor repsonse, IMHO. “You’re mommy is a crackhead!” “Yeah, well so is yours!!” How that’s defined as a refutation or reply is a concept clearly you alone can decipher.

**
Number five, you yourself qualified God as a “creator” or “guiding force” immediately after complaining that I assign to Him personal attributes. (Said the gander to the goose.)
**

I didn’t define those things, they were defined by the thread. Asking whether evolution and god are compatible is only a meaningful question if you presume certain things about “god.” What I objected to was your reference to your own “proof”, an argument that doesn’t establish a god of those attributes he’d have to possess to be relevant to this thread’s topic.

Whenever I hear you say “God” in the sense of your “ontological modal tableaux proof”, I know you mean a proposition that might be merely pantheistic. “Panthiesm” most certainly is materialist if the universe is finite, because the greatest possible existence would be a finite one. When you drop that little nugget of yours about “God” into a thread, with not a word of clarification, people might mistakenly presume you mean the big “G” god, because you spell it that way. Your “proof” has as much to do with the “God” being discussed in this thread as my nose has to do with a shoestore.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Lord Ashtar *
**Not sure what you mean by this.
**

What I mean is quite simply that I’m getting a little tired of your casual accusations. This time, I expect you to either back up your accusation with evidence, or retract it.

[Ben]

For some reason this didn’t bump when I posted to it, so I’m trying again.

[Apos]

Most pantheisms and myself (I’m an atheist) differ only in our use of terminology. The universe/all-that-exists is their god. This is a fact. It is not my god. This is a fact. These two facts do not contradict each other, since they are simply statements about people’s regard. In describing the universe/all-that-exists, however, one will not be likely to find any necessary factual difference between pantheist and atheist. This is what sometimes causes confusion, and makes people mistakenly confuse pantheism with a sort of toungue-in-cheek atheism, or either with materialism.

Some pantheists are fond of noting that “god is a pronoun.” Or to point out that to call something one’s god is to expresses a basic relation between TWO things, not unlike “mother” or “father” or “friend.” In their case, it is between the diefier and the diefied.