RE: Are Evolution and Christianity Completely Incompatible?
July 14, 2015 at 2:44 am
(This post was last modified: July 14, 2015 at 2:44 am by Excited Penguin.)
(July 14, 2015 at 2:40 am)whateverist Wrote: I'd say it is about following the meaning where it leads, not an arbitrary assignment of meaning.
I don't think it leads anywhere but to an added synonym to the word cosmos and potentially to a lot more reconciling of reason with blind faith on the part of believers. How can that be a bad thing?
(July 14, 2015 at 2:38 am)Aoi Magi Wrote:Why not?(July 14, 2015 at 2:33 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: I disagree. I think pantheism makes a lot of sense. When one ascribes to everything a divine nature one cancels the meaning of the word 'divine' altogether, for there can't be such a quality as to describe everything, except existence. It's really, just semantics. Pantheism seems to be the most rational form of belief there is.
It was a play on words. That's why.
Why should one call the universe or big-bang or whatever 'God' if it has no other claim to any special properties other than those already recognized by science? Why attribute a meaningless label like "divine" to any thing if the sole purpose of that label is to be meaningless?
