Can belief in a higher power be combined with Evolution

[Ben Masada]

Can a belief in a higher power or deity be combined with accepting evolution?

The Jesuits in the Catholic Church are famous for succeeding to do just that. In fact, they make the best scientists and astrophysicists, pioneers at hamonizing Theology with Science without contradiction. It goes without saying that atheists do not like them. Perhaps for having their atheistic weapons neutrilized in their fight against the idea of God.
Ben

 

[radarmark]

Well, that may be true. For instance, look up "Michael Heller", a Catholic Priest (at PAT and will probably be the next Director of the Vatican Observatory)--who is do some very "state of the art" work in extending geometry to model quantum mechanics (in the vein of Penrose).

Brightness knows very few theological or ethnic boundries.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[vizenos]

Vizenos,
but I'm not comfortable calling this evidence, well, they are evidence of something and most likely evolution as we understand it. But it's not the same as a repeatable experiment. What I'm saying is that we understand some factors and have drawn conclusions from them, but we don't know if there are more factors, how many and what they are. I'm quite comfortable not knowing for a fact how we have come to be, and until evidence of the contrary, I'll stick to the theory of evolution.

That certainly works for me! While I have perhaps more confidence than you that the preponderance of evidence for evolution--much like the preponderance of evidence for gravitation--is sufficient to ensure that the theory will be modified, elaborated, improved, but never falsified, the fact remains that in science ALL truth is tentative, never absolute. It seems to me that this is what you are saying and, if so, I tentatively agree!

I do wish to add one thing, however. Science builds upon replicable evidence, which is not quite the same as "repeatable evidence". Evidence, to be replicable, does not require that it result from an experiment which can be repeated; it can result from data which remains available to be observed repeatedly, and which will appear the same to anyone observing it, provided that the observer knows what to look for.

Lest that last clause seem like a lame cop-out, let me give an example. In the early part of the last century, an eminent European archaeologist, the foremost European expert in paleolithic tool industries, examined the floor of Olduvai Gorge and reported that he found absolutely no evidence of fabricated tools at that site. Some years later, Louis Leakey examined that same site, found that it was virtually impossible to walk on the floor of Olduvai Gorge without stepping on fabricated tools, and he came back with the photographs to support that claim! How did this happen? The answer was horrifyingly simple. The European archaeologist was looking for tools made out of flint, because that is what European stone tools are made out of. Leakey, being a native of Kenya, was not looking for flint; it would never have occurred to him to look for flint, which was simply not available in East Africa! So the European expert saw no tools, and Leakey saw tools everywhere. So, what's my point? Anyone who goes to Olduvai Gorge and looks for stone tools there will find what Leakey found--provided he's not looking for flint! And that's what I mean by "replicable evidence".

Regards,
Jim

 

[vizenos]

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But at the same time there are really no experiments nor falsifiability by experiment. The problem is that, at this level, we are dealing with very complex systems... From a philosophy of science view, it would behove us to 1) push towards a science of emergence that could help in this endeavor, 2) point out that the evidence is not experimental but inferential, and 3) further develop the understanding of inference/abduction/induction as a scientific tool in the general population.

Most citizens believe the "hypothesis-theory-law" paradigm (theories are unproven laws and laws are absolute) it really does not work that way. Secondly, there a bright individuals out there who misapply the Lakatos/Kuhn debate on what a science is to methodology (this even gets more complex whrn you bring in post-modernit deconstrction). Third, the vast majority of practicing mathematicians, engineers, and scientists still have a pre-chaos/complexity assumption of direct causality and cannot fathom probability or Bayesian theory.

I think as science split off from natural philosophy and theology, we Westerners still needed that idea of "absolute truth" (even if we attributed it to a clockworld world). And now that science can show that ain't so, we do not have anything to fall back on. That frustrates the non-scientist who go searching elsewhere for "absolute truth".

That is a truly excellent explication! I very much wish that I had said that and, since I am copying it to a Word document, I undoubtedly will, in the future!

My only problem: How can I construct an attribution for this, to give due credit to "Radarmark"?

Regards,
Jim

 

[vizenos]

The Jesuits in the Catholic Church are famous for succeeding to do just that. In fact, they make the best scientists and astrophysicists, pioneers at harmonizing Theology with Science without contradiction. It goes without saying that atheists do not like them. Perhaps for having their atheistic weapons neutralized in their fight against the idea of God.
Ben

By heavens, you're absolutely right! And lest anyone say, "Hah! Just another pair of Roman Catholics, patting each other on the back!", I am not a Roman Catholic, I'm Greek Orthodox. The evidence for your statement would remain both overwhelming and unchanged, were I a worshiper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Regards,
Jim

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

That certainly works for me! While I have perhaps more confidence than you that the preponderance of evidence for evolution--much like the preponderance of evidence for gravitation--is sufficient to ensure that the theory will be modified, elaborated, improved, but never falsified, the fact remains that in science ALL truth is tentative, never absolute. It seems to me that this is what you are saying and, if so, I tentatively agree!

I do wish to add one thing, however. Science builds upon replicable evidence, which is not quite the same as "repeatable evidence". Evidence, to be replicable, does not require that it result from an experiment which can be repeated; it can result from data which remains available to be observed repeatedly, and which will appear the same to anyone observing it, provided that the observer knows what to look for.

Lest that last clause seem like a lame cop-out, let me give an example. In the early part of the last century, an eminent European archaeologist, the foremost European expert in paleolithic tool industries, examined the floor of Olduvai Gorge and reported that he found absolutely no evidence of fabricated tools at that site. Some years later, Louis Leakey examined that same site, found that it was virtually impossible to walk on the floor of Olduvai Gorge without stepping on fabricated tools, and he came back with the photographs to support that claim! How did this happen? The answer was horrifyingly simple. The European archaeologist was looking for tools made out of flint, because that is what European stone tools are made out of. Leakey, being a native of Kenya, was not looking for flint; it would never have occurred to him to look for flint, which was simply not available in East Africa! So the European expert saw no tools, and Leakey saw tools everywhere. So, what's my point? Anyone who goes to Olduvai Gorge and looks for stone tools there will find what Leakey found--provided he's not looking for flint! And that's what I mean by "replicable evidence".

Regards,
Jim

I agree whole heartedly with every word. You should come here more often.

 

[luecy7]

The evidence of God does appear to be replicable.

 

[radarmark]

Vizenos -- thanks for the compliment, I just tink oddly. Luecy 7, be very careful with that saying because most scientists take "evidence" as a physical, quantifiable something!

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[luecy7]

Vizenos -- thanks for the compliment, I just tink oddly. Luecy 7, be very careful with that saying because most scientists take "evidence" as a physical, quantifiable something!

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

Is there a way for us to interact or communicate through something non-physical?

 

[radarmark]

Yep, it is call thought or relexation or mental events.

What do you consider material "evidence of G!d" and once identified, how is it replicable?

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[luecy7]

Yep, it is call thought or relexation or mental events.

Mental masturbation.

What do you consider material "evidence of G!d" and once identified, how is it replicable?

Faith, love, honesty, interaction, prayer: the same ways that you would replicate the evidence that someone who appears with a human body... actually exists. Another strong guiding point is: What we do for the least of people, we do for God. That does not mean that the least of people will behave anything like God. Inspect behavior carefully, and compare.

 

[radarmark]

Well, you are entitled to that opinion. But your "mental masturbation" is what faith, love, honesty, interaction and prayer are. If you judge all of these as mere behavioralism (which you imply), then how do you account for the faithful, loving, honest, involved, prayerful agnostic or atheist? You would then have to consider them as "evidence of G!d". But by definition (unless one is a strict materialist) one cannot.

But as a strict materialist are you really suddesting that G!d is strictly material? Is it only H!s behavior that makes H!r G!d? Do you see the logical flaw? One can be a strict materialist and be an atheist easily, but (unless you are using the word "god" in a way we ususally do not) it is rather inconsistent to be a materialist and a theist.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[luecy7]

If you judge all of these as mere behavioralism (which you imply), then how do you account for the faithful, loving, honest, involved, prayerful agnostic or atheist? You would then have to consider them as "evidence of G!d". But by definition (unless one is a strict materialist) one cannot.

From my perspective, God has the power to make God plainly obvious to a person.

But as a strict materialist are you really suddesting that G!d is strictly material?

I don't see materialism as true, but I do use and interact through physical material. Don't you?

Is it only H!s behavior that makes H!r G!d?

?!?

Do you see the logical flaw?

Which one?

One can be a strict materialist and be an atheist easily, but (unless you are using the word "god" in a way we ususally do not) it is rather inconsistent to be a materialist and a theist.

By what aspect are you calling me a materialist? Do you believe I think God is composed of atoms? Should I similarly say that you are composed of bytes on this website?

 

[IowaGuy]

From my perspective, God has the power to make God plainly obvious to a person.

How can you be sure that the evidence of God that you think comes from God is not instead coming from your mind and your mind only? How do you know it's not just a self-fulfilling prophecy - perhaps you want to believe in God, therefore your mind fabricates God's interaction in your life?

Back when I was Christian, my fellow church members would often pray for "direction from God" for various issues in their lives. I always wondered, how do they know this "direction" actually comes from God and isn't just a product of their mind?

Do you ever get "direction" or "signs" from God? How do you differentiate that from an experience generated by your mind?

Do you think the "visions" of Native Americans also came from this same God?

 

[radarmark]

See your first post said "Is there a way for us to interact or communicate through something non-physical?"

I relied "Yep, it is call thought or relexation or mental events".

And you replied "Mental masturbation."

You have cleared that up. If one is not a materialist (hence a behavioralist in psychology), why would you call thought "mental masturbation".

We agree. G!d makes H!rself known to each of us plain as day. G!d is non-material. I require no material proof if you are saying that thoughts exist meaningfully.

Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)

 

[luecy7]

See your first post said "Is there a way for us to interact or communicate through something non-physical?"

I relied "Yep, it is call thought or relexation or mental events".

Thought, relaxation, or mental events... are physical.

And you replied "Mental masturbation."

Yes. Imagine a vehicle with two steering wheels and two drivers, like an aircraft. You can potentially get into a little game of issues over who is responsible for the driving, and over who or what is in control. In a manner of speaking, the vehicle is potentially in control, each of the obvious drivers are potentially in control, and hidden drivers (via other vehicles, weather, manufacturer, mechanic), are also in control. Something like an Ouija board. No single individual would necessarily know who, or what, was in control.

Similarly as I read your statement: thought, relaxation, and mental events, you are describing driving solo. Sort of like using an Ouija board all by yourself, as if the brain just magically presents the answers of where to go and how to get there all by itself.

I reject both cases as mental masturbation. People find that it feels good, and I understand why. In my view, a person will fail to know God with mental masturbation, just as drivers will fail to know each other in the two examples that I provided. Better to attempt to co-ordinate and to co-operate: also known as, FAITH. When a degree of co-ordination and co-operation is achieved, is there uncertainty over who is in control, like that of an ouija board, or a magical brain?

You have cleared that up. If one is not a materialist (hence a behavioralist in psychology), why would you call thought "mental masturbation".

I am neither a materialist, nor a behavioralist. I am an engineer.

We agree. G!d makes H!rself known to each of us plain as day.

Not necessarily.

I require no material proof if you are saying that thoughts exist meaningfully.

Material proof of what?!

 

[luecy7]

How can you be sure that the evidence of God that you think comes from God is not instead coming from your mind and your mind only? How do you know it's not just a self-fulfilling prophecy - perhaps you want to believe in God, therefore your mind fabricates God's interaction in your life?

God can do things that I can't.

Back when I was Christian, my fellow church members would often pray for "direction from God" for various issues in their lives. I always wondered, how do they know this "direction" actually comes from God and isn't just a product of their mind?

Is my reply, similarly just a product of your mind?

Do you ever get "direction" or "signs" from God?

Of course.

How do you differentiate that from an experience generated by your mind?

Lets ask it this way: How do we differentiate a sign that is from someone who is good, from a sign that is from someone who is evil?

Do you think the "visions" of Native Americans also came from this same God?

They were not my "visions", so why should I spend any time thinking about them? I imagine they were potentially from God. Do you think that a vision is proof of God?

 

[radarmark]

Thought, relaxation, or mental events... are physical.

If one states thoughts are physical, one cannot believe in the existence of mind. By definition and about 6000 year of philosophical thought this makes you wither a (1) material monist, (2) inconsistent, or (3) a believer in some "third option" (like spirits or souls without minds). So post #232 stands. If mental events are physical minds are physical. If minds are physical, G!d's mind is physical. So where is it located?

Yes. Imagine a vehicle with two steering wheels and two drivers, like an aircraft. You can potentially get into a little game of issues over who is responsible for the driving, and over who or what is in control. In a manner of speaking, the vehicle is potentially in control, each of the obvious drivers are potentially in control, and hidden drivers (via other vehicles, weather, manufacturer, mechanic), are also in control. Something like an Ouija board. No single individual would necessarily know who, or what, was in control.

The refutation is easy. I am now looking at the back of my right hand. I have now turned it over and am looking at the palm. THe responsibility is mine and mine alone. My thoughts (conscious and unconscious) control my body. Do you have someone else in your body causing you to type your reply to this?

Similarly as I read your statement: thought, relaxation, and mental events, you are describing driving solo. Sort of like using an Ouija board all by yourself, as if the brain just magically presents the answers of where to go and how to get there all by itself.

Yep. I can demonstrate that easily (and did above). What is the alternative? In philosophy (among those who have spent a lifetime of thinking about this sort of thing) the only real alternatives are: solipsism (the belief that one one mind, necessarily yours. exists and reality is defined as its thoughts, in your case defined as your perceptions and mysterious physicality of mind) or epiphenominalism (my perception of my mind is a mistake, a flaw in my physical make-up tricking me into believing that I am conscious, so my thoughts are really just probducts of the goat cheese I had for dinner last night). Take your pick.

What I percieve (contraryily to you) is a mind that has access to a lot of realtime information (via my senses) and a lot of stored information (memory) which can solve the problem. If I am driving solo down the highway and have not mapped out my route and need to figure out how to get from point A to point B, I solve the problem by pulling off the road and getting a map or turning on mapquest.

I reject both cases as mental masturbation. People find that it feels good, and I understand why. In my view, a person will fail to know God with mental masturbation, just as drivers will fail to know each other in the two examples that I provided. Better to attempt to co-ordinate and to co-operate: also known as, FAITH. When a degree of co-ordination and co-operation is achieved, is there uncertainty over who is in control, like that of an ouija board, or a magical brain?

If there are two drivers or two pilots (you eamples)

Interesting, how does one know G!d if there is no mind? One usually assumes knowing is a mental event. If mental events do not exist, what is knowledge?

I am neither a materialist, nor a behavioralist. I am an engineer.

Not necessarily.

Material proof of what?!

 

[donnann]

There is an area within scientology that understands something about CLEAR that might be able to be used by some. They attribute CLEAR to only the brain area, while it is to be understood to all of an existence area.

When knowledge exists in parts it is only information and this is understood to an existence back and forth inside of their body and from outside of their body. The brain is one area where this is placed as aware (and most who experience what is internal dialogue are here in this population) and when you are sitting around "thinking" you are semi conscious and aware to that area only. Dogs are aware at the nose area and other life flares areas that are mucus filled to draw in information in the environment.

Whole knowledge is placed to what is awareness at an area where communication is continuous when an existence experiences an inherent interest.

It is the experience of the withdrawal of any and all participation in communication areas that results in an existence having feelings that are separated and the loss of what some call attention span (or consciousness, a misplaced understanding circumstance, a soul).

There is something about what can be called sight knowing that is intersting and it how we will always understand.

What if instead of a third eye someone had two eyes there?

 

[IowaGuy]

God can do things that I can't.

Can you give me three examples of something you can't do, and which you attribute to God's divine intervention?

Is my reply, similarly just a product of your mind?

Yes, when I read your reply it becomes a product of my mind, subject to my "rose colored glasses" and all my biases and assumptions.

When someone else reads your reply it becomes a product of their subjective mind. If you type your reply, yet I don't read it, it is not a product of my mind.

Lets ask it this way: How do we differentiate a sign that is from someone who is good, from a sign that is from someone who is evil?

So, all good signs are from God, and all evil signs are from your mind? That is what you are implying here. Otherwise, as I asked before, how do you differentiate between a "sign" from God and a product of your mind?

They were not my "visions", so why should I spend any time thinking about them? I imagine they were potentially from God. Do you think that a vision is proof of God?

I think all "visions" are a product of mind. Do you think some visions come from God and some not from God? How can you tell the difference?