(September 6, 2011 at 9:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: Not strictly speaking the case. The concept of god has shown itself to be one of the more malleable concepts we have. Judging by the breadth and variety of religious tradition throughout history it isn't inconceivable that a god could be dreamt up that was very compatible with evolution. Some gods were proposed to be sadists (are at least to claimed to have acted sadistically towards human beings). It might also deserve mention that evolution is not sadistic, it's indifferent, so the more proper way to describe a god of evolution would probably be along the same lines. That the current crop of gods are not compatible is unsurprising. The founders of the worlds major religions didn't even know what a cell was, let alone genes or evolution. Gods, and prophetic characters never knew more about the world around them than was common for their time. If we imagined a Jesus character who lived today, he would almost certainly preach a gospel that included evolution (and in all likelihood the entirety of scientific knowledge with the caveat of dualism). You have to remember that many religious texts contained within them the best science of their time (this was one of the pillars of their authority). The RCC recognizes the scientific community and has gone on record stating that evolution is fine with them. So even traditions that we feel are "set in stone" are subject to review and revision.
I don't agree and these assumptions are all part of trying to justify the unjustifiable. The malleability you mention is a sign of a concept under stress and having difficulty maintaining its position. Its not a sign of strength its the opposite.
Although its true there are a variety of 'Gods' (all created by men) the usual focus is the Christian 'Loving' God and the Muslim vision of a 'merciful' God. These (or this) concept of Godness would certainly fail the evolution test. Evolution is not merciful or loving. The Jewish idea of a vengeful God may be closer to the truth but there are far too many contradictions in the scriptures to even consider it.
Evolution is not indifferent not by along way its very focused on survival of the fittest that's not indifference.
This focus of selection can be considered 'sadistic' if it was accepted as preconceived. Of course it isn't preconceived so it isn't sadistic.
But believing its the mechanism God used to create living things (as they are now and as they will be) puts sadism back in the picture.
Its inescapable. If you want a 'creator' then you have to go with preconception.
As for different Gods one argument used by Gnostic's is that the world is such a harsh and difficult place (understood by Gnostic's and Buddhists long before evolution was understood) that God couldn't have made it and it must therefore be a product of Satan.
Satan as a God does address the issues we have with evolution but its still a concept created by men.
Most theists reject this completely.
Thats their problem if they want a God you would think they would accept the evidence, weak though it is and not reject if for the impossible.
As for religion and science that is a complete misnomer. The paternalistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have been dragged kicking and screaming into scientific reality. If it wasn't for the paternalistic religions science would have advanced at least a thousand years.
Evolution would have been discovered I around 1000 AD and the invasion of William the Conqueror would have been stopped by the use of a tactical nuclear weapon.
