God created Evolution. Done. I don’t know why all the fundies go through all those bizarre lengths.
I may be agnostic now but I was raised mainstream protestant (liberal) christian (methodist). They made it so simple. Zero contradiction between religion and science. evolution? God started it. Genesis? Allegory and surprisingly close in some ways to evolution – so, perhaps ancient science wrapped in a morality tale. Stuff like that.
My first exposure to bible literalists blew me away. How could they be so stupid? I thought they were joking. Man was I wrong.
I doubt I could ever “go atheist” because I can only analyze as far as I can analyze. Beyond that? I don’t know. Simple as that.
I could go back to theistic evolutionist or stay agnostic at any point in time. There’s no contradiction between the two for me. If someone says “are you a believer?” I could say yes or no and be honest either way because its a non-specific question.
Well, their starting point is bad. Word of God – Logos – is a tricky philosophical/theological concept. The idea of “Bible Only” is considered just flat out “wrong” for the first 1600 years of Christianity. Still is in the traditional Christian groups and in the more reasonable modern groups.
It’s only the ones that come from the Calvinist line that seem to be a problem. The worst offenders are the ones that don’t have a church body. “Just me and my Bible”. Turning the Bible into a magical spell book is a horrible idea yet people do it and get stupid conclusions from it.
I think of it this way:
God doesn’t need a book. That’s the thing. It may help us but God’s not trapped in a book.
Who put words to paper? People. They did the best they could.
From that point people interpret the words. Are they interpreting the words right? That’s where it gets tricky.
People who lead can use their power to mislead They might not even realize they’re doing it but they can mislead.
Logic traps are a common way to mislead people.
“If this, then that” Focus on the “if”. If there’s something wrong with their “If this” part, then the “then that” part may be wrong.
I like what’s called “Apophatic Theology”. It’s basically this:
You speak of God by what God is _not_, not by what God _is_.
If you can’t draw a circle around God and say “THIS IS GOD”, maybe you *can* draw circles around things that are NOT God and leave the rest alone.
I don’t know if it’s possible to do perfectly but I think it’s a useful way to look at things.
It’s rarely used outside of the Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. I was deep into it once. [almost became a monk].
But I like the idea of it. Makes sense. After all, what’s Uncircumscribed?
Well, to circumscribe something is to draw an outline.
Uncircumscribed is something you can’t drawn an outline around.
For a concept such as God, how *could* you draw a circle around an infinite? If you could, then the line would be outside of infinity.
This is one of those ways of thinking that keeps me in the agnostic area and not in an atheist area, thoughts like these. Some mock it as “god of the gaps” but I see it more as “there’s stuff about this existence we’ve barely begun to notice”. It’s easy to think we almost have it all figured out but humans always like to get cocky like that.
They almost had it all figured out at the end of the 19th century. They really believed it. They were sure of it.
But just look what we’ve learned since the 19th century. Quite a bi. There’s bound to be a lot more questions we haven’t even thought to ask yet.
Sadly, I lean towards, “likely not” on the question of God. Yet, there’s other ways to look at it. If I see God as active systems and the way they interplay, or see nature as necessarily conscious (for if we are lower beings and conscious, perhaps aspects of the universe we’re born *within* are of a greater conscious. If so, there you go.
I also amuse myself with the idea of God being a 12 dimensional being residing in the Bulk, but that’s my sci-fi mind having fun.
Exactly! And it’s so easy to get cocky. So easy. There’s a modern mythology surrounding the sciences in popular culture that’s hard to spot.
It basically has us believing that physics leads to chemistry leads to biology leads to cognitive science leads to psychology leads to sociology leads to anthropology … or something like that… with math at the basis of physics and logic at the basis of math and at the basis of logic is nothing.
But the gaps between each are generally pretty huge with the single exception of the connection between math and physics. They’re completely tied together for hundreds of the years, the development of one affecting the development of the other. So it’s no coincidence. But the rest? The gaps are tremendous and some might be nearly or completely impossible to overcome.
But the “Russian nesting dolls” view of the sciences is alluring. Tempting. Seems to make so much sense. But it unfortunately falls apart upon analysis.
But this I can agree with. Biology is nature’s application of physics and chemistry. Engineering is man-made application of physics and chemistry. This covers a good amount of territory.
From there I’d go from engineering to industry (practical application of engineering), from industry to business and from business to marketing and from marketing to psychology/sociology/politics and other messy things.
eh I was close. Some day I’ll get everything in proper order.