Are Evolution and Christianity Completely Incompatible?

[Aoi Magi]

ermm why the heck a pantheist would need to be called an atheist in such a weird way? And if anybody believes the universe is god, then by definition the texts and scriptures of almost all major religions are false, and before claiming "god" pantheists would still need to demonstrate a sentient existence before the big bang or the universe or whatever they presume the creator to be.

[Excited Penguin]

ermm why the heck a pantheist would need to be called an atheist in such a weird way? And if anybody believes the universe is god, then by definition the texts and scriptures of almost all major religions are false, and before claiming "god" pantheists would still need to demonstrate a sentient existence before the big bang or the universe or whatever they presume the creator to be.

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.

[Whateverist]

...


But if you read the bible allegorically, then there is no reason whatsoever to reject evolution.

...

But what then, is the garden of eden?  What does the garden of eden represent?  What of original sin?  How can the allegory make any sense at all if evolution is true?  And how could evolution be compatible with a good, omnipotent, omniscient god?  Evolution is brutal and nasty, and any being that chose that method to make something either is incapable of something better (so not omnipotent) or just does not mind a lot of suffering (so not good at all).

It seems to me that the only way one could suppose that evolution is compatible with the Bible, even just taking the Bible as metaphorically true, is to not pay attention to any of the details or think it through.

What I have noticed is people saying "metaphor" and "allegory" and then simply ignoring what the stories say altogether.  You can see that in this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34389.html

When a story is an allegory, the story still says whatever it says, and one must make sense of it somehow, or it fails as an allegory.

But any theist adept enough to read the bible allegorically is not going to subscribe to any bullshit about the bible being inerrant.  Neither would you need to think the whole thing is golden.  It may just be good for a few good parables and symbols.  The point of such a reading would not be to understand the natural world as including supernatural bits.  It would simply be to get some insight into the human condition and the possibilities and perils that entails.

Long before we had the mastery of discursive expression we have today we would have been understanding things allegorically.  I'm not talking about a primitive, silly science.  Thor isn't a failed hypothesis for lightening and thunder.  It is entirely about people attempting to understand themselves in the world, not the world itself.  Leastwise, that is the only part worth caring about.

[Aoi Magi]

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?

[Whateverist]

I'd say it is about following the meaning where it leads, not an arbitrary assignment of meaning.

[Excited Penguin]

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?

---

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?

Why not?

[Pyrrho]

But what then, is the garden of eden?  What does the garden of eden represent?  What of original sin?  How can the allegory make any sense at all if evolution is true?  And how could evolution be compatible with a good, omnipotent, omniscient god?  Evolution is brutal and nasty, and any being that chose that method to make something either is incapable of something better (so not omnipotent) or just does not mind a lot of suffering (so not good at all).

It seems to me that the only way one could suppose that evolution is compatible with the Bible, even just taking the Bible as metaphorically true, is to not pay attention to any of the details or think it through.

What I have noticed is people saying "metaphor" and "allegory" and then simply ignoring what the stories say altogether.  You can see that in this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34389.html

When a story is an allegory, the story still says whatever it says, and one must make sense of it somehow, or it fails as an allegory.

But any theist adept enough to read the bible allegorically is not going to subscribe to any bullshit about the bible being inerrant.  Neither would you need to think the whole thing is golden.  It may just be good for a few good parables and symbols.  The point of such a reading would not be to understand the natural world as including supernatural bits.  It would simply be to get some insight into the human condition and the possibilities and perils that entails.

Long before we had the mastery of discursive expression we have today we would have been understanding things allegorically.  I'm not talking about a primitive, silly science.  Thor isn't a failed hypothesis for lightening and thunder.  It is entirely about people attempting to understand themselves in the world, not the world itself.  Leastwise, that is the only part worth caring about.

The thing is, once one gives up on it being all correct, why regard it as at all special?  There are plenty of stories that have meaning, like Aesop's fables, and they make a whole lot more sense than the stories in the Bible.  Why not be an Aesopist instead of a Christian?  Why call oneself a "Christian" if the basis of Christianity is nothing special at all?

My own take on this is that many modern Christians have basically rejected the foundation of their religion, but keep their religion anyway.  And that is very irrational.

[Whateverist]

At least as irrational as preferring Cashew Caramel to Rocky Road ice cream when both are perfectly fine. I think you can empathize a little with most of the traditional stories, but none are anything I'd use to characterize what I am. Perhaps it would be different if I was brought up more forcibly in a religion and I'd had to immerse myself in the symbolism of just Christianity. Then it might be that my unconscious would latch onto those symbols and I'd have to go there to figure out what it was on about.

[Dystopia]

But any theist adept enough to read the bible allegorically is not going to subscribe to any bullshit about the bible being inerrant.  Neither would you need to think the whole thing is golden.  It may just be good for a few good parables and symbols.  The point of such a reading would not be to understand the natural world as including supernatural bits.  It would simply be to get some insight into the human condition and the possibilities and perils that entails.

Long before we had the mastery of discursive expression we have today we would have been understanding things allegorically.  I'm not talking about a primitive, silly science.  Thor isn't a failed hypothesis for lightening and thunder.  It is entirely about people attempting to understand themselves in the world, not the world itself.  Leastwise, that is the only part worth caring about.

The thing is, once one gives up on it being all correct, why regard it as at all special?  There are plenty of stories that have meaning, like Aesop's fables, and they make a whole lot more sense than the stories in the Bible.  Why not be an Aesopist instead of a Christian?  Why call oneself a "Christian" if the basis of Christianity is nothing special at all?

My own take on this is that many modern Christians have basically rejected the foundation of their religion, but keep their religion anyway.  And that is very irrational.

The foundation of Christianity is the belief in the resurrection and divinity of Jesus, so as long as you believe in that, you're as Christian as anyone else. Just my opinion. I don't want to approach a different variation of the no true scotsman fallacy and say some people are not really Christians

[Whateverist]

May be true for the vast majority. But if someone who claims to be a Christian tells me what Jesus meant was to follow his example of being an iconoclast and personal transcendence, I'm not going to argue with the guy.