Author Topic: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory  (Read 24569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #75 on: November 12, 2014, 11:08:29 pm »
That's an argument I've frequently heard, but it misunderstands God's nature.  God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time.  God is actually outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once.  Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen.  If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream.  Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?
However you spin it, God created everything exactly as it is, knows exactly what the result of that will be (or is, or was, or however you want to describe it), and has the means and the know how to get a different result, if that's what he desires.

As for your example, did you create the kid from scratch, down to the very last subatomic particle? Did you build its brain in such a way that it derives happiness from eating ice cream, and is repulsed by dead mice (which you also created in exactly the way they are)? Because if so, the kid's not exactly free to act in ways that you didn't intend for it to act.

Taking this analogy a little further, if you then hide a razor blade in the ice cream, you can't somehow pretend you're completely blameless because free will when the kid somehow ends up eating said razor blade and you especially can't claim that you're omnibenevolent. Especially when you're perfectly capable of, you know, not putting a razor blade in the ice cream in the first place.
Hardly.  That's more like if somebody looked at Medusa's head while Perseus was using it to kill a sea monster after he explicitly warned them to shield their eyes.
Well, no. Largely because a severed Medusa head is an inanimate object. Nobody is trying to claim it's an all loving being.
You misunderstand me.  God didn't deliberately kill her, she looked back.

And one could have seen what happened from a distance without turning to stone.  Or heard the sound, felt the heat, or smelled the smoke and blood.
...What? So your argument in your previous post is that God specifically used his Instant Death Glance form to send a message (on top of simply demolishing the city) to the world not to fuck with him. So knowing this, how exactly is anyone supposed to know he's in his Instant Death Glance form without someone actually looking at him and dying? If you can safely look at him from a distance (which is a news to me, but let's go with it for now) and not die, then how would you know that you will die if you look at him from close up? Though if you just meant see the city being destroyed and not God himself, then again, what the fuck is the point of his Instant Death Form? If no one is truly meant to actually see him, he might as well appear as giant rubber ducky for all it would matter. As such, the only possible reason he could have for specifically choosing the Instant Death Glance Form is that he fully intends for someone to look at him and die from it. It's not like an all knowing being needs to take precautions.
Again, you miss my point about exaggeration.  If everything Jesus said was meant to be taken literally, there'd be millions of people walking around with logs in their eyes.  And it has to be remembered that Jesus was a carpenter, i.e. a small businessman.  Therefore, He would know that what He was suggesting was economically unfeasible.  There is a school of thought that says what He really meant was that the wealthy should take care of the poor, through charity or other means.
So basically, when Jesus said "give as much as you can afford to helping the poor rather than wallowing in opulence. If you're still loaded by the time you show up at heaven, we're going to have a problem", what he really meant was "give whatever you won't really notice, but not so much that you might actually have to downsize a little, we can't have that now can we?"
That's a common misconception.  I used to think that was the case too.  But the real picture was far more complex.

Of the general commands, only Deuteronomy 7:1-5 demands the total destruction of the Canaanites.  Deuteronomy 20:10-18 qualifies this by specifically mentioning the destruction of Canaanite cities.  The others concern driving them out, destroying their idols and not making any treaties with them.
Ah, just drive them off their land, then. Yeah, that's totally not a horrible thing to do to people. I for one don't know what the fuck the Palestinians are complaining about.
And even that wasn't actually done.  God’s angel did not insist on the total destruction of the Canaanites after the war (Judges 2:1-10).  If slaying all the Canaanites was God’s command, the angel would have said so.  God’s angel also said he would no longer drive out all the Canaanites since Israel showed little interest in doing so.  In essence, the divine command of conquest was rescinded.  Because of disobedience, the Canaanites remaining were now allowed to stay.  They would become a test for Israel’s faithfulness to God (Judges 3:1-6).  It seems unlikely God would use the Canaanites in this fashion if they were fit only for slaughter.
I guess not. Really, they're just there to "test Israel's faithfullness" (again, why does an all knowing being need to do that in the first place? Especially by displacing and supplanting an entire culture?). Totally something an omnibenevolent deity would do.
If you take it at face value that the Hebrews massacred civilians in Jericho, then you also have to take it at face value that every single Amalekite was completely and irredeemably evil.  You can't have it both ways.

And what alternative would you suggest?
So are they irredeeemably evil, or is God all powerful and all loving? Because last I checked, the Bible says God can do anything. If he can't somehow redeem the Amalekites (which, again, he created to be so "irredeemably evil" in the first place), then he's not in fact all powerful.

So I'd say it's you who can't have it both ways.
Of course not.  But again, that's a false equivalence.
Ah, so you would not consider it okay to wipe out an entire culture, even if they are "irredeemably evil" in your book, then. Well good. You sir, are a better source of moral guidance than God.
Again, if you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
Well, bearing in mind that I am neither all loving, all knowing or all powerful, I have a few. For instance, as I've said many a time before, don't create them to be so "irredeemably evil" in the first place. Or failing that (because reasons), humans are far more suggestable than you might expect. Use something like priming or the anchoring effect (or other things that modern psychology have yet to figure out) to very reliably change their ways without touching their supposed free will. Marketers have been doing it to you and everyone else for decades. Or perhaps I could say fuck free will, it's not somehow worth mass slaughter or even a thing in the first place in this scenario, and just rewire their brains to be less terrible.

As you can see, even someone who isn't even close to all knowing or all powerful can think of a few things that are far more preferable to genocide. Who'd have thunk it?

Offline Ironchew

  • Official Edgelord
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Gender: Male
  • The calm, intellectual Trotsky-like Trotskyist
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #76 on: November 16, 2014, 05:42:17 pm »
In fact, I actually defended an atheist from being attacked by some fanatical Christian.  And there are many, many examples of Christian groups fighting against the bigotry of the more extreme members of the faith.

Matt Dillahunty, I name thee bigot.

Call his show the next time he's on and tell him. That would be good for a laugh.

You know, maybe I will.  Thanks for the idea.

He's on right now until 18:30 EST. Tell the call screeners you're religious and you want to talk about something in the Bible to get top priority.
Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #77 on: November 16, 2014, 06:24:27 pm »


Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers.  And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.


http://www.cracked.com/article_18948_5-real-deleted-bible-scenes-in-which-jesus-kicks-some-ass.html

You know, there's a reason those scenes were removed from the Bible.

Would you rather God deprive them of free will?
Ah yes, "free will". Again, the all knowing and all powerful God created them with the will to behave a certain way and the foreknowledge of exactly how it would turn out, down to the last tiniest detail. Free will is complete bullshit if you do indeed believe an all knowing and all powerful god exists.
That's an argument I've frequently heard, but it misunderstands God's nature.  God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time.  God is actually outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once.

Meaningless distinction. Assuming that "God is outside of time" is meaningful, an obvious corollary is that he can use his knowledge of events at time t2 to influence what he makes happen at time t1*. This is functionally indistinguishable from foreknowledge, and so you can't use "didn't know that was going to happen" as an excuse for God.

You misunderstand me.  But then again, considering there are a lot of complexities involved, I don't blame you.

Quote
Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen.  If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream.  Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?

Quite right. As a related point, I hold that God can create the world in such a way that he knows people don't do bad things without depriving them of their free will.

But then we wouldn't have true free will.  Choice must include the full spectrum of decisions.

Quote
The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites.  And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them.  God did not give that command lightly.

It's still genocide, and the omnipotent God could've literally done anything about it, including not creating the universe in such a way that they'd end up existing in the first place.
If you take it at face value that the Hebrews massacred civilians in Jericho, then you also have to take it at face value that every single Amalekite was completely and irredeemably evil.  You can't have it both ways.

I suspect Art's point is neither "the Bible is literally true" nor "the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically", but rather "the events of the Bible are fictional, but if real, the actions of God would be evil".

Also, God created the Amalekites. If they are all evil, his fault.

Actually, no he didn't.  There were no Amalekites in the Garden of Eden, ergo, God did not directly create them.  Rather, they chose evil.

Quote
And what alternative would you suggest?
Not creating evil people would be a good start.

If God wanted to do that, He would have.  But He didn't, because humanity would be nothing more than automatons.  Again, choice must include the ability to choose unwisely, or cruelly.  And let's not forget that a number of angels turned evil as well.

Quote
New Testament God ain't cuddly either, though.  Such as when he struck an older couple dead because they lied about tithing or something like that.

It's never said that God killed them.  When God kills somebody, the Bible makes a point to emphasize that fact.  For all I know, they might have just had heart attacks out of fear.

So he didn't kill them, he just literally scared them to death. Even accepting that as a meaningful distinction, how does that qualify as "cuddly"?

If you read the passage, all that happens is that Saint Peter yells at them, and then they drop dead.  Hardly damning evidence.  There were no bears appearing out of nowhere to slaughter them, the ground didn't swallow them up, and fire didn't rain down from the sky to incinerate them.

Quote
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers.

"We're all flawed humans" does not work when the human in question is God incarnate. That's dangerously close to heresy.

Jesus has a human nature, doesn't He?

And besides, it was aimed at people desecrating the Jewish temple.  If I were part God, I'd be pissed too.

Quote
And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.

Or maybe a fig tree plus everyone God killed in the Old Testament, if you accept the Trinity. Or everyone who ever died ever (plus a fig tree), considering the whole "nothing happens if it's not the will of God" thing.

The idea of a microinterventionist God is far from universally accepted.  My denomination, for example, doesn't accept it.

Oh, and Jesus is considered distinct in person from God the Father.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #78 on: November 16, 2014, 08:29:27 pm »
Meaningless distinction. Assuming that "God is outside of time" is meaningful, an obvious corollary is that he can use his knowledge of events at time t2 to influence what he makes happen at time t1*. This is functionally indistinguishable from foreknowledge, and so you can't use "didn't know that was going to happen" as an excuse for God.

You misunderstand me.  But then again, considering there are a lot of complexities involved, I don't blame you.

Then go ahead and explain.

Quote
Quote
Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen.  If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream.  Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?

Quite right. As a related point, I hold that God can create the world in such a way that he knows people don't do bad things without depriving them of their free will.

But then we wouldn't have true free will.  Choice must include the full spectrum of decisions.

Read my words: I argue it's possible to create a universe such that people reliably don't do bad things without depriving them of their free will.

A) I cannot decide to step through a wall, so clearly making a universe where some things cannot be done does not contradict free will. If every time someone tried to stab someone else, a forcefield went up and stopped the knife, does that contradict your version of free will? If so, then how is that different from the fact that I cannot stab people with telekinetic abilities? God clearly has no problems stopping some forms of evildoing from being doable.

B) I have never, in my entire life, murdered anyone. The same holds for most people. This is obviously not random chance; some people, for some reason or another, choose not to murder, and others do. That "some reason or another" is important, because it means there are causal factors that influence our decisions (our personalities, our circumstances, etc.). Would creating a universe where those causal factors apply to everyone violate free will? If so, why doesn't it when it affects the majority of the population of the planet?
Quote
Also, God created the Amalekites. If they are all evil, his fault.

Actually, no he didn't.  There were no Amalekites in the Garden of Eden, ergo, God did not directly create them.  Rather, they chose evil.

The distinction is pointless. God created the universe in such a way that it resulted in the Amalekites existing and making the choices they did. He could have created it otherwise (unless you hold God is not omnipotent).

Quote
Quote
And what alternative would you suggest?
Not creating evil people would be a good start.

If God wanted to do that, He would have.  But He didn't, because humanity would be nothing more than automatons.  Again, choice must include the ability to choose unwisely, or cruelly.  And let's not forget that a number of angels turned evil as well.

Choice must include the possibility of choosing unwisely, but not the fact of it. I could choose to stab myself in the leg, and I don't. This is not because I lack free will, it's because that's a stupid choice, and I know it. Thus, God can create people in such a way that they don't make choices they could have made. There's not particular reason this should be limited to me personally not stabbing myself, rather than everyone and every bad choice.

Quote
Quote
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers.

"We're all flawed humans" does not work when the human in question is God incarnate. That's dangerously close to heresy.

Jesus has a human nature, doesn't He?

Still God incarnate. To say his patience has limits is to say God's patience has limits, is to say God is not omnipotent and perfect and all that jazz.

Quote
And besides, it was aimed at people desecrating the Jewish temple.  If I were part God, I'd be pissed too.

If I were part God, I would remove them magically and nonviolently from the temple and then fix whichever flaw in the world resulted in something like that happening. Because omnipotence.

Quote
Quote
And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.

Or maybe a fig tree plus everyone God killed in the Old Testament, if you accept the Trinity. Or everyone who ever died ever (plus a fig tree), considering the whole "nothing happens if it's not the will of God" thing.

The idea of a microinterventionist God is far from universally accepted.  My denomination, for example, doesn't accept it.

One does not need to posit continuous intervention by God. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows exactly what he wants to happen and what will in fact happen as a consequence of his actions. He can then create the universe in such a way that only those things he wants to happen, do in fact happen.

If God has a will, then that will happens. That's what omnipotence means. Ergo, if something happened, it's a contradiction to say that God wanted it not to happen.

Quote
Oh, and Jesus is considered distinct in person from God the Father.

I was going to press the point but meh, don't really care to argue the Trinity. I'll give you this one.
Σא

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #79 on: November 16, 2014, 09:02:18 pm »
Two things -

First, if free will is such a big deal, why does God interfere with free will on a reasonably regular basis in the Bible. On several occasions it is noted that God 'hardens (someones) heart' so that he can do something (usually wipe them out or show his magnificence). The best example is with Pharoah. Where God hardens his heart so that he refuses to release the Israelites.

Second I thought almost all modern christian denominations considered Jesus both fully man and fully divine. I though this was the wash up of the Arian heresy.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2014, 09:13:42 pm »
Two things -

First, if free will is such a big deal, why does God interfere with free will on a reasonably regular basis in the Bible. On several occasions it is noted that God 'hardens (someones) heart' so that he can do something (usually wipe them out or show his magnificence). The best example is with Pharoah. Where God hardens his heart so that he refuses to release the Israelites.

Second I thought almost all modern christian denominations considered Jesus both fully man and fully divine. I though this was the wash up of the Arian heresy.

That's a common misconception.  When we read that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it's an easy mistake to assume that God did something to the Pharaoh in order to cause his heart to become stubborn and “hard.”  But you can cause something to become hard just by leaving it alone, such as when bread goes stale if you leave it out on the counter.  It seems more likely that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart by removing what little presence of His grace that was in Pharaoh’s heart in the first place.

And you're right.  I should have phrased that better.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 09:17:03 pm by Ultimate Paragon »

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2014, 09:21:45 pm »
Ok but that completely changes the accepted translation from God doing something to being passive. Further by implication he altered his free will by removing part of his grace. This would also appear to alter the free will of those who are in receipt of any modicum of God's grace. So God in fact interferes in the free will of all existent humans through the disposition of his grace? Why does he make everyone suffer so much then?


Offline Ironchew

  • Official Edgelord
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Gender: Male
  • The calm, intellectual Trotsky-like Trotskyist
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #82 on: November 16, 2014, 10:01:22 pm »
We don't have free will in the libertarian sense. That's just leftover thinking from vitalism.

Deterministic beings with our sheer number of inputs and internal complexity are perfectly capable of acting without compulsion. I don't have a problem with that, but I would certainly have a problem with a supposedly omniscient being that set this all in motion and knew what was going to happen. Any way you square it, killing nearly everyone on the planet just to start over with "good" humans is incompetence. It speaks to the lack of imagination of the bronze age goat herders who created the scriptures.
Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

Offline Rime

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
  • Gender: Male
  • Born too slow
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #83 on: November 19, 2014, 12:36:15 am »
Technically, he is talking about intellegent design.

I'm late to the party, but intelligent design means that there are times he tweaks creation with several "unexplainable" phenomena like the vertebrate eye.  Proponents claim "irreducible complexity" and say "we can discuss it, but until you come up with proof, we win!" which is pretty much trying to cause a teetering atheist to hopefully stumble into their camp.

I believe that the Pope is trying to say that God did it without breaking the laws of science he supposedly set up the universe to run by, meaning he didn't use obvious and vulgar displays of power as Creationists would like us to believe.  After all, the idea that God didn't create the universe and everything in it in under 200 hours would mean that he's not as awesome as they'd like him to believe.  Like the God they've created in their own image, creationists have a horrendous lack of patience.
And when we're done soul searching,
And we carry the weight and die for a cause.
Is misery made beautiful
Right before our eyes.

Mercy be revealed, or blind us where we stand?

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory
« Reply #84 on: November 19, 2014, 12:42:25 am »
Technically, he is talking about intellegent design.

I'm late to the party, but intelligent design means that there are times he tweaks creation with several "unexplainable" phenomena like the vertebrate eye.  Proponents claim "irreducible complexity" and say "we can discuss it, but until you come up with proof, we win!" which is pretty much trying to cause a teetering atheist to hopefully stumble into their camp.

I believe that the Pope is trying to say that God did it without breaking the laws of science he supposedly set up the universe to run by, meaning he didn't use obvious and vulgar displays of power as Creationists would like us to believe.  After all, the idea that God didn't create the universe and everything in it in under 200 hours would mean that he's not as awesome as they'd like him to believe.  Like the God they've created in their own image, creationists have a horrendous lack of patience.

Oh. I thought that Intellegent design was just that God set things in motion in a certain way.

Anyway, my personal belief is pretty much the same as yours.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!