The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Romanz1 wrote: ↑September 13th, 2018, 10:01 pm
I'm Catholic and used to believe in a young earth, but then discovered that that interpretation of Genesis has been proven incorrect but modern geology (more specifically, radiometric dating). I now believe God may have used evolution over millions of years to produce life - except in the case of man, who did not evolve from a pre-existing creature, but was created separately and distinctly (from inanimate matter, as described in Genesis 2:7), 6000-10000 years ago.
This should make it quite obvious that theistic scripture and emperical science are not compatible with each other.
Science tells us how the world works, religion tries to tell us how the world should live.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out
anonymous66 wrote:How about you? Do you know any YEC's?
Not knowingly. But the subject almost never comes up outside of philosophy discussions.
Romanz1 wrote:I now believe God may have used evolution over millions of years to produce life - except in the case of man, who did not evolve from a pre-existing creature, but was created separately and distinctly (from inanimate matter, as described in Genesis 2:7), 6000-10000 years ago.
Do you think this is true of all species/subspecies of man? Or just homo sapiens sapiens?
Continuing the theme of other [sub]species of man:
I often wonder if this idea that homo sapiens sapiens is fundamentally distinct from the rest of the animal world would still have taken hold if our closest relatives (e.g. homo erectus) had not recently (on evolutionary timescales) died out. As it is, we're left with chimpanzees as our closest living relatives, separated from us by something like 6 million years.
If it was clearer that the difference between species is a quasi-continuum on which we impose our own hard dividing lines, and if there were as many living species of hominidae as there are, say, beetles, perhaps the more realistic picture of the world would have been built into our cultures (including our religions) from the start.
Perhaps that explains why some humans climb mountains and, when asked why they do, reply "because it's there" with a faraway look in their eyes. Homo erectus didn't, and died out as a result. Possibly.
Thinking critical wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 7:24 am
This should make it quite obvious that theistic scripture and emperical science are not compatible with each other.
Science tells us how the world works, religion tries to tell us how the world should live.
Not entirely - I believe the Bible when it says Adam was the first man who was created from inanimate matter about 7000 years ago.
Romanz1 wrote:I now believe God may have used evolution over millions of years to produce life - except in the case of man, who did not evolve from a pre-existing creature, but was created separately and distinctly (from inanimate matter, as described in Genesis 2:7), 6000-10000 years ago.
Do you think this is true of all species/subspecies of man? Or just homo sapiens sapiens?
Just homo sapiens, I guess. Not sure if I believe in 'species/subspecies of man'.
Thinking critical wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 7:24 am
This should make it quite obvious that theistic scripture and emperical science are not compatible with each other.
Science tells us how the world works, religion tries to tell us how the world should live.
Not entirely - I believe the Bible when it says Adam was the first man who was created from inanimate matter about 7000 years ago.
This is interesting. Do you understand/agree that something that looked very much like modern ma existed before 7000 years ago? If so then I am assuming you believe god “added” something extra to these beasts and/or used them as a template for us?
Romanz1 wrote:Just homo sapiens, I guess. Not sure if I believe in 'species/subspecies of man'.
That's interesting, because you said earlier that you do believe that species other than homo sapiens developed via a process of evolution. The evidence for that is largely in the fossil record. The evidence for the evolution, and relatively recent extinction, of various other hominid species, such as homo erectus, is also in the fossil record. Why do you choose to believe some fossil evidence but not others? Is it because you want to believe some things but don't want to believe others? Do you think that believing or not believing things like this is a matter of personal preference?
Romanz, wouldn't it be simpler to go with the scientific consensus and your religious beliefs. As in can't both be true? Even in the case of a clear contradiction such as evolution accounts for humanity V God directly made humans independently of evolution. Can't you just believe both things? Wouldn't that give you the best of both worlds?
I just find the mish mash of logic confusing and question the utility of trying to preserve non contradiction in this example.
Thinking critical wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 7:24 am
This should make it quite obvious that theistic scripture and emperical science are not compatible with each other.
Science tells us how the world works, religion tries to tell us how the world should live.
Not entirely - I believe the Bible when it says Adam was the first man who was created from inanimate matter about 7000 years ago.
Again reiterating my point that science is NOT compatible with religious scripture. Bibles are stories written by mortals in a time when our species simply didn't have the technology to gain a coherent understanding of nature. It is no suprise that ancient scriptures constantly make reference to gods, demons and miracles in order to explain natural phenomena. This type of thinking is consistent with the limited intellectual capacity of the era.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out
People are free to believe whatever they wish and pick and choose as they see fit. I find your blithe analysis of religious scripture leaves a lot to be desired.
Thinking critical wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 7:24 am
This should make it quite obvious that theistic scripture and emperical science are not compatible with each other.
Science tells us how the world works, religion tries to tell us how the world should live.
Not entirely - I believe the Bible when it says Adam was the first man who was created from inanimate matter about 7000 years ago.
Just curious. When a pre-schooler asks you: "why is the sky blue?" or "where do babies come from?" What do you answer?