How to rationalize evolution with the existence of God
March 9, 2020 1:04 PM Subscribe
How can you rationalize evolution with the existence of God? Separately, how can you rationalize the idea of evolution with the Christian God?
The reason why I'm trying so hard to get these ideas to co-exist is because I can't make sense of the human body within a Christian framework.
Maybe it's a strange thing to be hung-up on, especially since so many Christians seem to see the body as a magnificent piece of well-engineered machinery that points to God as creator.
But I can't help seeing bodies as hairy bipedal gross things that make a lot more sense when viewed within the context of evolution than within the context of Biblical Christianity.
So, I'm trying to merge evolution (so I can make sense of the body) with Christianity (because I'd rather have faith than not).
I wanted to know Jordan Peterson's opinion on evolution and God/Christianity, but his answers are so complex and long-winded I cant figure out what he really thinks about it.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Maybe it's a strange thing to be hung-up on, especially since so many Christians seem to see the body as a magnificent piece of well-engineered machinery that points to God as creator.
But I can't help seeing bodies as hairy bipedal gross things that make a lot more sense when viewed within the context of evolution than within the context of Biblical Christianity.
So, I'm trying to merge evolution (so I can make sense of the body) with Christianity (because I'd rather have faith than not).
I wanted to know Jordan Peterson's opinion on evolution and God/Christianity, but his answers are so complex and long-winded I cant figure out what he really thinks about it.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
This post was deleted for the following reason: poster's request -- cortex
The book God After Darwin by John Haught deals with some of these questions. He's an evolutionary theologist who explores the question of how evolutionary theory can deepen and complicate humankind's relationship with the divine. The complexity of the subject makes me hesitant to summarize his arguments, but he says things like this:
"Darwin has gifted us with an account of life whose depth, beauty, and pathos—when seen in the context of the larger cosmic epic of evolution—expose us afresh to the raw reality of the sacred and to a resoundingly meaningful universe."
posted by rabbitbookworm at 1:22 PM on March 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
"Darwin has gifted us with an account of life whose depth, beauty, and pathos—when seen in the context of the larger cosmic epic of evolution—expose us afresh to the raw reality of the sacred and to a resoundingly meaningful universe."
posted by rabbitbookworm at 1:22 PM on March 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
Catholicism threads this needle like so.
If you're theologically inclined, Pope St. John Paul II wrote extensively on the theological meaning of the body, placing it in the context of creation itself as a sacramental sign - it was, after all, in a body that God reveals Himself to humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity.
posted by jquinby at 1:28 PM on March 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
If you're theologically inclined, Pope St. John Paul II wrote extensively on the theological meaning of the body, placing it in the context of creation itself as a sacramental sign - it was, after all, in a body that God reveals Himself to humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity.
posted by jquinby at 1:28 PM on March 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
You can choose to believe that God designed the course of evolution. Or threw 30 million dice on the craps table of chaos to see what happened, and our universe and our planet and our evolution was one of many outcomes. Or that God exists in all of our multiple realities, including ones in which evolution happened entirely differently or not at all.
There is absolutely nothing that makes a belief in evolution (or any aspect of science) incompatible with faith.
posted by DarlingBri at 1:29 PM on March 9, 2020 [10 favorites]
There is absolutely nothing that makes a belief in evolution (or any aspect of science) incompatible with faith.
posted by DarlingBri at 1:29 PM on March 9, 2020 [10 favorites]
There's a surprisingly good Wikipedia article on evolution and the Catholic church. Worth a full read, and there are a lot of citations, but here's a key Francis quote:
[God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. ...The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper at 1:30 PM on March 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
I can't help seeing bodies as hairy bipedal gross thingsAnd to add to the others’ explanation of Catholic traditions of evolution: if you accept that human bodies are extremely imperfect, you also appreciate the full implications of God sending Jesus to the world as a person. Someone who ate, grew hair, sweated, read, worked a job, got angry, got tired, wept, suffered, the same as the rest of us.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 2:00 PM on March 9, 2020 [13 favorites]
Biblical Christianity... Human believers in Christianity have evolved over the two millennia or so since the historical Christ was alive.
The Pew survey of US religious affiliations identifies about 44 entities as Christian churches, within eight larger groupings. This doesn't include the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam. You could draw a family tree if you knew more of the history of each sect.
Evangelical Protestant
Baptist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Methodist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Nondenominational Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Lutheran Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Presbyterian Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Pentecostal Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Episcopalian/Anglican Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Restorationist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Congregationalist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Holiness Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Reformed Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Adventist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Anabaptist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Pietist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Other evangelical/fundamentalist family (Evangelical Trad.)
Nonspecific Protestant Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Mainline Protestant
Baptist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Methodist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Nondenominational Family (Mainline Trad.)
Lutheran Family (Mainline Trad.)
Presbyterian Family (Mainline Trad.)
Episcopalian/Anglican Family (Mainline Trad.)
Restorationist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Congregationalist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Reformed Family (Mainline Trad.)
Anabaptist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Friends Family (Mainline Trad.)
Nonspecific Protestant Family (Mainline Trad.)
Historically Black Protestant
Baptist Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Methodist Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Pentecostal Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Holiness Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Nondenominational Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Nonspecific Protestant Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Catholic
Mormon
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Other Mormon
Orthodox Christian
Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox
Orthodox Church in America
Other Orthodox Christian
Jehovah's Witness
Other Christian
Metaphysical Family
Others in the "Other Christian" Tradition
The beliefs of which of these sects are you trying to reconcile with evolution and the animalistic qualities of the human body? There are Christian sects which have officially accepted the theory of evolution and some which deny its truth and attempt to keep evolution out of school teachings.
Reading the other responses to your probing question, I see that people find their own answers. The Roman Catholic church, which leaves the most detailed history of its positions with regard to evolution as with everything else gives me the sense that it has reached not a reconciliation but a belief, in some ways as mystical as many other RC beliefs.
The Pew study also finds almost 23 percent of Americans who claim no religious affiliation.
I am an atheist and find no problem with evolution.
posted by tmdonahue at 2:37 PM on March 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
The Pew survey of US religious affiliations identifies about 44 entities as Christian churches, within eight larger groupings. This doesn't include the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam. You could draw a family tree if you knew more of the history of each sect.
Evangelical Protestant
Baptist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Methodist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Nondenominational Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Lutheran Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Presbyterian Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Pentecostal Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Episcopalian/Anglican Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Restorationist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Congregationalist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Holiness Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Reformed Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Adventist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Anabaptist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Pietist Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Other evangelical/fundamentalist family (Evangelical Trad.)
Nonspecific Protestant Family (Evangelical Trad.)
Mainline Protestant
Baptist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Methodist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Nondenominational Family (Mainline Trad.)
Lutheran Family (Mainline Trad.)
Presbyterian Family (Mainline Trad.)
Episcopalian/Anglican Family (Mainline Trad.)
Restorationist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Congregationalist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Reformed Family (Mainline Trad.)
Anabaptist Family (Mainline Trad.)
Friends Family (Mainline Trad.)
Nonspecific Protestant Family (Mainline Trad.)
Historically Black Protestant
Baptist Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Methodist Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Pentecostal Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Holiness Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Nondenominational Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Nonspecific Protestant Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.)
Catholic
Mormon
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Other Mormon
Orthodox Christian
Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox
Orthodox Church in America
Other Orthodox Christian
Jehovah's Witness
Other Christian
Metaphysical Family
Others in the "Other Christian" Tradition
The beliefs of which of these sects are you trying to reconcile with evolution and the animalistic qualities of the human body? There are Christian sects which have officially accepted the theory of evolution and some which deny its truth and attempt to keep evolution out of school teachings.
Reading the other responses to your probing question, I see that people find their own answers. The Roman Catholic church, which leaves the most detailed history of its positions with regard to evolution as with everything else gives me the sense that it has reached not a reconciliation but a belief, in some ways as mystical as many other RC beliefs.
The Pew study also finds almost 23 percent of Americans who claim no religious affiliation.
I am an atheist and find no problem with evolution.
posted by tmdonahue at 2:37 PM on March 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
Disclaimer: I am not a Catholic. I have, however, spent a lot of time thinking and reading about this topic.
It seems to me that most Christian belief systems, perhaps especially Catholicism, involve teaching oneself the discipline of holding seemingly disparate or contradictory ideas in ones head concurrently, without a loss of faith. For example: the Holy Trinity -- God is both one and three. Jesus -- both a man and of / actually God. The gospels -- four distinct stories with major differences and sometimes conflicting accounts, yet all equally true. There are more, but you get the idea.
Now there are a LOT of schools of thought and explanations for all of these things. But I see the similar thread as being 'faith exists even in the face of contradiction'.
Perhaps you do not need to reconcile. Perhaps you can find room in your faith to hold these logically incompatible ideas at the same time. If having faith brings you peace and joy, there is no reason to set it aside because of incongruences between the scripture and science. Accept this, and perhaps your faith will be all the stronger for it.
posted by ananci at 3:07 PM on March 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
It seems to me that most Christian belief systems, perhaps especially Catholicism, involve teaching oneself the discipline of holding seemingly disparate or contradictory ideas in ones head concurrently, without a loss of faith. For example: the Holy Trinity -- God is both one and three. Jesus -- both a man and of / actually God. The gospels -- four distinct stories with major differences and sometimes conflicting accounts, yet all equally true. There are more, but you get the idea.
Now there are a LOT of schools of thought and explanations for all of these things. But I see the similar thread as being 'faith exists even in the face of contradiction'.
Perhaps you do not need to reconcile. Perhaps you can find room in your faith to hold these logically incompatible ideas at the same time. If having faith brings you peace and joy, there is no reason to set it aside because of incongruences between the scripture and science. Accept this, and perhaps your faith will be all the stronger for it.
posted by ananci at 3:07 PM on March 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
...involve teaching oneself the discipline of holding seemingly disparate or contradictory ideas in ones head concurrently, without a loss of faith
Well put. We call this "a mystery of the faith," the totality of which we cannot understand, no matter how deeply we probe. And yes, they are accepted on faith.
posted by jquinby at 3:13 PM on March 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
Well put. We call this "a mystery of the faith," the totality of which we cannot understand, no matter how deeply we probe. And yes, they are accepted on faith.
posted by jquinby at 3:13 PM on March 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
This will sound flippant but I promise it's not: In your question you ask "How can I rationalize..." and the answer is, you can't. Faith is not reason; they are two parallel tracks.
posted by dbx at 3:23 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by dbx at 3:23 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
There is a tendency to believe that God works by magic, and that we should not be able to discern a scientific for anything that God does. But there are plenty of examples to the contrary. For example, Genesis says God divided the day from the night. Well, we know how that works (Sun, rotation of Earth), but does that mean God didn't do it?
posted by SemiSalt at 4:32 PM on March 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by SemiSalt at 4:32 PM on March 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
It’s important to realize that there are some important and powerful religions that deny evolution, but nothing in scientific evolutionary theory says anything about the existence of a God, let alone denying it.
For the record: no major ancient holy text says evolution can’t happen.
Also: science can’t even talk about gods; they aren’t in the domain.
So all you have to do to believe in a (Christian) God and evolution is ignore the modern practitioners who say evolution is wrong, or pick a God whose adherents are already largely ok with science and evolution.
posted by SaltySalticid at 4:45 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
For the record: no major ancient holy text says evolution can’t happen.
Also: science can’t even talk about gods; they aren’t in the domain.
So all you have to do to believe in a (Christian) God and evolution is ignore the modern practitioners who say evolution is wrong, or pick a God whose adherents are already largely ok with science and evolution.
posted by SaltySalticid at 4:45 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
In the Bible, in 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote about how there are "heavenly" bodies that do not decay and "earthly" bodies that do decay. Our gross, bipedal bodies are vulgar, but once we die if we enter heaven the new bodies are perfect.
Evolution itself isn't debated much amongst the Christians I interact with. Speciation, on the other hand (the idea the evolution can cause new species to be formed) is. They would maintain that God created the different species during the Creation, and those species have evolved over time, but there hasn't been a proven case of one species evolving into another species.
I figure if God can do anything, he can make millions of years of evolution turn out how He wants. Or maybe He created our world with animals who from the moment they came into being existed in a later stage of evolution (much like a movie or book that starts telling a story in the middle, with time-jumps or flashbacks that explain what happened in the past).
I don't think the two ideas are incongruous or mutually exclusive at all.
posted by tacodave at 5:29 PM on March 9, 2020
Evolution itself isn't debated much amongst the Christians I interact with. Speciation, on the other hand (the idea the evolution can cause new species to be formed) is. They would maintain that God created the different species during the Creation, and those species have evolved over time, but there hasn't been a proven case of one species evolving into another species.
I figure if God can do anything, he can make millions of years of evolution turn out how He wants. Or maybe He created our world with animals who from the moment they came into being existed in a later stage of evolution (much like a movie or book that starts telling a story in the middle, with time-jumps or flashbacks that explain what happened in the past).
I don't think the two ideas are incongruous or mutually exclusive at all.
posted by tacodave at 5:29 PM on March 9, 2020
Creation is not making things out of matter but out of consciousness. The material level happens out on the edge of creation and less important than what precedes it.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:46 PM on March 9, 2020
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:46 PM on March 9, 2020
see the body as a magnificent piece of well-engineered machinery that points to God as creator.
But I can't help seeing bodies as hairy bipedal gross things
That's some dichotomy you've got going there. Bodies are certainly hairy and bipedal, but grossness is a very subjective matter.
However "magnificent piece of well-engineered machinery" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Mammalian bodies are more magnificent kludges than magnificently engineered, and the human body especially so. Off the top of my head:
Why does the laryngial nerve detour via the chest?
Why is conception so inefficient?
The compromise between bipedalism and the birth canal means that infants are born helpless.
Why are reproductive organs so closely associated with waste disposal?
Lets run the urethra through an organ that tends to enlarge with age.
Why are humans unable to synthesise vitamin C [unlike most other animals]?
posted by HiroProtagonist at 6:48 PM on March 9, 2020
But I can't help seeing bodies as hairy bipedal gross things
That's some dichotomy you've got going there. Bodies are certainly hairy and bipedal, but grossness is a very subjective matter.
However "magnificent piece of well-engineered machinery" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Mammalian bodies are more magnificent kludges than magnificently engineered, and the human body especially so. Off the top of my head:
Why does the laryngial nerve detour via the chest?
Why is conception so inefficient?
The compromise between bipedalism and the birth canal means that infants are born helpless.
Why are reproductive organs so closely associated with waste disposal?
Lets run the urethra through an organ that tends to enlarge with age.
Why are humans unable to synthesise vitamin C [unlike most other animals]?
posted by HiroProtagonist at 6:48 PM on March 9, 2020
I've personally come to the conclusion that an activist creator is not the most likely, but I still find religion and much of religious thought deeply interesting historically and philosophically. A lot of smart people have spent much of their lives trying to square the circle and come up with interesting ideas on just about every scientific discipline around.
There was a recent Sixty Symbols episode[YouTube] about The Pope's Astronomer that (in part) discusses the relationship between religion and science that you might find interesting.
posted by wierdo at 7:00 PM on March 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
There was a recent Sixty Symbols episode[YouTube] about The Pope's Astronomer that (in part) discusses the relationship between religion and science that you might find interesting.
posted by wierdo at 7:00 PM on March 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
The bible doesn't spend that much time on laying out facts, but where it does, I mean, it ain't just evolution. Plenty of biblical claims are flatly contradicted by science and history. That doesn't mean that Love thy neighbour as thyself is bad advice and, for Christians, that's the most important sentence in the whole thing.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 7:14 PM on March 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 7:14 PM on March 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's hard to argue that the human body is kludgy, but it's also hard to argue that there is pain and suffering in the world. Christianity of various sorts has wrestled with that latter question (which can be read as a superset of the former) explicitly in lots of interesting ways. (Other religions have, too, of course.) If it's the "in his image" bit that is causing that rift, I think part of the question is what, specifically, that phrase means, because most Christian religions probably aren't presuming that God literally looks like some sort of human average dude.
I'm no theologian, and I'm not religious at all, but I think that looking to explicitly reconcile Biblical text with scientific knowledge is using the Bible in a particularly kludgy way, and not for its intended purpose. Various Christian sects acknowledge, to greater or lesser extent, the historical context in which human authors wrote its various texts, and recognize that that context shaped the particular language and analogies and references they used.
posted by pykrete jungle at 8:09 PM on March 9, 2020
I'm no theologian, and I'm not religious at all, but I think that looking to explicitly reconcile Biblical text with scientific knowledge is using the Bible in a particularly kludgy way, and not for its intended purpose. Various Christian sects acknowledge, to greater or lesser extent, the historical context in which human authors wrote its various texts, and recognize that that context shaped the particular language and analogies and references they used.
posted by pykrete jungle at 8:09 PM on March 9, 2020
Your "gross things" comment suggests to me that your real problem is with the existence of imperfection and evil. This is a version of the "problem of evil", which is an old, old challenge in theology. To start with I'd recommend C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain, which gives one Christian approach to the problem, and as a bonus addresses evolution along the way.
posted by zompist at 11:12 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by zompist at 11:12 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
My mother, the best Christian I know, believes that God set the evolutionary ball rolling, and that Creation as described in Genesis is largely a metaphor or some other kind of figurative narrative.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:07 AM on March 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:07 AM on March 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
How can you rationalize evolution with the existence of God?
You can rationalize anything.
Whether you actually think that it's the truth is a little harder. But Jordan Peterson's musings on the matter are not the place to start. There are actual theologians who spent the last century on this problem.
This very conflict was the beginning of my gradual conviction that the existence or non-existence of God isn't relevant to me.
posted by aspersioncast at 5:07 AM on March 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
You can rationalize anything.
Whether you actually think that it's the truth is a little harder. But Jordan Peterson's musings on the matter are not the place to start. There are actual theologians who spent the last century on this problem.
This very conflict was the beginning of my gradual conviction that the existence or non-existence of God isn't relevant to me.
posted by aspersioncast at 5:07 AM on March 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
If there is a God they created evolution as a way for their creations to survive. They gave them all there other survival skills, why not the ability to change as needed when circumstance change. Honestly makes more sense than them fixing an animals behaviours & physical being in stone so they die out at the second there is the slightest change in their environment. They gave humans free will so they can change, why would they not also give life in general other ways to change as needed.
Also nothing gross about the human body, and I like that you are trying to get over what sounds like your religious beliefs about humans being faulty & evil & understanding them from an evolutionary stand point. I would suggest reading up on human evolution and why things are like they are.
The Albert Einstein quote, sums it up best for me. "My sense of God is my sense of wonder about the Universe.", that includes things like the wonder of evolution & how we all got here & the rich and amazing variety of lifeforms we have on the planet because of it. If you believe in a God, how could you look at the amazing variety of life forms that have evolved & not see them as a huge joyful celebration of the awesomeness of whatever divineness might be out there.
posted by wwax at 9:03 AM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
Also nothing gross about the human body, and I like that you are trying to get over what sounds like your religious beliefs about humans being faulty & evil & understanding them from an evolutionary stand point. I would suggest reading up on human evolution and why things are like they are.
The Albert Einstein quote, sums it up best for me. "My sense of God is my sense of wonder about the Universe.", that includes things like the wonder of evolution & how we all got here & the rich and amazing variety of lifeforms we have on the planet because of it. If you believe in a God, how could you look at the amazing variety of life forms that have evolved & not see them as a huge joyful celebration of the awesomeness of whatever divineness might be out there.
posted by wwax at 9:03 AM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
I can't help seeing bodies as hairy bipedal gross things that make a lot more sense when viewed within the context of evolution than within the context of Biblical Christianity.
At any time when something taken on faith is flatly and unambiguously contradicted by what is completely bleeding obvious, I recommend not letting go of the completely bleeding obvious.
Vast amounts of completely avoidable suffering have been caused by failures to adhere to this principle.
Faith is for getting you through the day when you have no clue what's going on. When you do know what's going on, your options are to accept it or fix it, as appropriate. Denying what's staring you in the face for no better reason than that it disagrees with something you've read or been told will butter no parsnips.
As for the kind of doublethink required in order to take both branches of a flat contradiction to be true and attempt some kind of handwaving justification for that wretchedly dishonest act on the basis of "mystery", possibly the less said about how much intellectual cowardice I consider that attitude to reveal the better.
If somebody has a belief in a deity who gave them their reason, it strikes me as a fundamentally disrespectful abuse of that gift to choose a lazy, literalist interpretation of their religious text of choice rather than seek a reading that allows the metaphor and poetry and beauty and yes, mystery of it to sit comfortably beside those expressed in other ways by other texts from other traditions. Universal truth should not be expected to fit tidily into any single book of words.
Then again I'm hairy, bipedal, gross and quite content to be so, so I would say that.
posted by flabdablet at 10:51 AM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
At any time when something taken on faith is flatly and unambiguously contradicted by what is completely bleeding obvious, I recommend not letting go of the completely bleeding obvious.
Vast amounts of completely avoidable suffering have been caused by failures to adhere to this principle.
Faith is for getting you through the day when you have no clue what's going on. When you do know what's going on, your options are to accept it or fix it, as appropriate. Denying what's staring you in the face for no better reason than that it disagrees with something you've read or been told will butter no parsnips.
As for the kind of doublethink required in order to take both branches of a flat contradiction to be true and attempt some kind of handwaving justification for that wretchedly dishonest act on the basis of "mystery", possibly the less said about how much intellectual cowardice I consider that attitude to reveal the better.
If somebody has a belief in a deity who gave them their reason, it strikes me as a fundamentally disrespectful abuse of that gift to choose a lazy, literalist interpretation of their religious text of choice rather than seek a reading that allows the metaphor and poetry and beauty and yes, mystery of it to sit comfortably beside those expressed in other ways by other texts from other traditions. Universal truth should not be expected to fit tidily into any single book of words.
Then again I'm hairy, bipedal, gross and quite content to be so, so I would say that.
posted by flabdablet at 10:51 AM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
his answers are so complex and long-winded I cant figure out what he really thinks about it
Just quietly: neither can he.
posted by flabdablet at 10:55 AM on March 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
Just quietly: neither can he.
posted by flabdablet at 10:55 AM on March 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
This will sound flippant but I promise it's not: In your question you ask "How can I rationalize..." and the answer is, you can't. Faith is not reason; they are two parallel tracks.
Plus, to which do you want to give greater weighting or authority? It's a hard fight against "look into it for yourself and if you must, check each step" by the people of "this is the book, you approach it from this angle and you'll see I'm right, so listen and obey me."
Faith is hard every day; reason explains many things and reason is most easily transmitted as a story -- but the story is only a summary of the full thing and the gaps are where faith is both the challenge and the source of strength.
Faith isn't about winning out over other ideas, it's about enduring the uncertainty and standing strong on conviction you did the right things for the right reasons -- that's exactly why "love your neighbour as yourself" and "do unto others as you'd have them do to you" can be measured by "by their fruit shall you know them." (If you don't know these verses, check them out via your favourite search engine.)
posted by k3ninho at 4:04 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
Plus, to which do you want to give greater weighting or authority? It's a hard fight against "look into it for yourself and if you must, check each step" by the people of "this is the book, you approach it from this angle and you'll see I'm right, so listen and obey me."
Faith is hard every day; reason explains many things and reason is most easily transmitted as a story -- but the story is only a summary of the full thing and the gaps are where faith is both the challenge and the source of strength.
Faith isn't about winning out over other ideas, it's about enduring the uncertainty and standing strong on conviction you did the right things for the right reasons -- that's exactly why "love your neighbour as yourself" and "do unto others as you'd have them do to you" can be measured by "by their fruit shall you know them." (If you don't know these verses, check them out via your favourite search engine.)
posted by k3ninho at 4:04 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
Robert Wright's book Nonzero makes a fairly persuasive argument that it is not crazy for a scientist to believe in God. However, I know of no way to reconcile believing that the Bible and Christian myth are literal historical truth with believing in evolution.
The Bible is a mix of things and some of them are obviously fiction. Take the book of Ruth. The name Ruth means sweetness. Her mother-in-law's name is Naomi, which means suffering. Her two sons' names are Sickly and Deadly -- guess what happens to them in the story? I mean, maybe you think God wrote the book of Ruth, word for word. But even if He did, He was writing fiction. No mother in history was ever like, know what? Imma name my babies Sickly and Deadly. Those names are foreshadowing, son.
The Bible is myth. It isn't true because it happened. It's true because it happens all the time.
posted by shadygrove at 9:20 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
The Bible is a mix of things and some of them are obviously fiction. Take the book of Ruth. The name Ruth means sweetness. Her mother-in-law's name is Naomi, which means suffering. Her two sons' names are Sickly and Deadly -- guess what happens to them in the story? I mean, maybe you think God wrote the book of Ruth, word for word. But even if He did, He was writing fiction. No mother in history was ever like, know what? Imma name my babies Sickly and Deadly. Those names are foreshadowing, son.
The Bible is myth. It isn't true because it happened. It's true because it happens all the time.
posted by shadygrove at 9:20 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
The theory of evolution is arguably the best single theory of all time. It offers a unifying explanation of how every single feature of every single living creature (including psychological features) got to be how it is.
So far as religion is concerned, evolution emphatically debunks a version of the design argument (how can we explain all these perfectly adapted creatures without a creator)- that used to be very influential. It also contradicts all literal readings of every religious creation story I know of. Any attempt to reconcile Christianity with evolution by adding in a role for God in the creation of life is the very definition of an 'ad hoc' or non-parsimonious addition that would make it a much poorer theory. The very point of evolution is that you don't need any non-natural explanation for living creatures.
Evolution doesn't have anything to say about where the universe comes from, or the earth. But merely as a stunningly successful scientific theory it indicates the general potential for simple naturalistic explanations to account for the complex universe we observe. It's also worth noting how evolutionary psychology can give plausible naturalistic explanations for humans' tendency to attribute intentional agency to nature (Dennett's intentional stance) and even the popularity of religion (via meme theory).
You say you'd 'rather have faith'. Why? Why swap a clear-minded insight into the nature of the world for confusion and paranoia?
posted by leibniz at 4:44 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
So far as religion is concerned, evolution emphatically debunks a version of the design argument (how can we explain all these perfectly adapted creatures without a creator)- that used to be very influential. It also contradicts all literal readings of every religious creation story I know of. Any attempt to reconcile Christianity with evolution by adding in a role for God in the creation of life is the very definition of an 'ad hoc' or non-parsimonious addition that would make it a much poorer theory. The very point of evolution is that you don't need any non-natural explanation for living creatures.
Evolution doesn't have anything to say about where the universe comes from, or the earth. But merely as a stunningly successful scientific theory it indicates the general potential for simple naturalistic explanations to account for the complex universe we observe. It's also worth noting how evolutionary psychology can give plausible naturalistic explanations for humans' tendency to attribute intentional agency to nature (Dennett's intentional stance) and even the popularity of religion (via meme theory).
You say you'd 'rather have faith'. Why? Why swap a clear-minded insight into the nature of the world for confusion and paranoia?
posted by leibniz at 4:44 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
You are thinking about this, good on, so few actually really think. Now consider other religious thinkers -- as opposed to the many sects that opportunistically use the controversies to trigger kneejerk reactions for political and financial gain. Find a Jesuit to chat with or take a class from one to discuss the topic. consult a member of the deep thinking branch of the catholic church, they've been seriously thinking as a group for longer than most other current sects. Deep sincere people of faith but from all I know have no problem with the theory of evolution.
How can you rationalize
(as for me, I don't, my personal thinking is extreme agnosticism, there is no way to prove the existence of god, science does not address the topic (except psychologically) and religion really does not address most contemporary topics, what observations in writings from a couple thousand years ago made about the world are interesting but pretty much superseded. How much of the bible was used in building a cell phone or even a toaster?)
posted by sammyo at 6:06 AM on March 11, 2020
How can you rationalize
(as for me, I don't, my personal thinking is extreme agnosticism, there is no way to prove the existence of god, science does not address the topic (except psychologically) and religion really does not address most contemporary topics, what observations in writings from a couple thousand years ago made about the world are interesting but pretty much superseded. How much of the bible was used in building a cell phone or even a toaster?)
posted by sammyo at 6:06 AM on March 11, 2020
A hard line skeptic materialist does not accept as truth the biblical story of the Garden of Eden.
A fundamentalist Christian Bible literalist does not accept the theory of evolution.
In between these extremes there's some compromise & interpretation.
Carl Jung viewed religious images as metaphors.
Jordan Peterson is influenced by Carl Jung, but his ideas are sometimes inconsistent, and I wouldn't take him too seriously.
posted by ovvl at 10:28 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
A fundamentalist Christian Bible literalist does not accept the theory of evolution.
In between these extremes there's some compromise & interpretation.
Carl Jung viewed religious images as metaphors.
Jordan Peterson is influenced by Carl Jung, but his ideas are sometimes inconsistent, and I wouldn't take him too seriously.
posted by ovvl at 10:28 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by corb at 1:11 PM on March 9, 2020 [14 favorites]