"This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Read the rest here
There always seems to be a way to fit God into everything. The problem here is that evolution creates a situation that doesn't need God, inventing him is pointless and unnecessary. Occam's razor people.
5 Responses to "Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’"
September 17, 2007 at 3:56 AM
I'm not entirely sure that Occam's Razor can be applied to this situation as neatly as you'd like it to, Mister Porter. If you would argue that God (either big 'g' or small) is "beyond necessity," you may find yourself in an indefensible position.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." - Voltaire.
This is one of the very few examples where circular reason proves a point. Many points, actually. Right now, I just want one.
I absolutely cannot agree that the idea of a higher power, in whatever forms that may take through all of recorded history, is "beyond necessity" in the understanding of our existence. If it were, you would also have to include art, poetry, music, language, and all the other amazing things humans do. For some reason, psychologically, humans need something abstract to hold on to. These things are aesthetic, and while they have no absolute value to our continued existence (such as food, shelter, reproduction, and such), you have to admit that there is SOMETHING that requires man as a whole to engage in such conjecture.
In this, of course, I speak mostly of the little 'g,' as a study of the Christian God is, of course, much more elaborate and apologetic endeavor.
I guess to summarize my longwindedness, consider:
If the concept of an abstract 'power' was not absolutely necessary for any reason to humanity, how would you explain the fact that nearly every single original civilization on the planet had some (or many different) ideas regarding "the supernatural?"
((also: I say "nearly every" only to protect myself, as I can not think of one that didn't have a belief system of some sort, though I would not be surprised if, through diligent search, one found proof otherwise. Also, I put "supernatural" in quotes because I hate that word, and the concept, because it is intrinsically paradoxical. Ask me about it sometime.))
September 18, 2007 at 4:54 PM
But I think Occam's Razor does apply and you're only helping me to prove that.
Art is an abstract thing that doesn't have anything to do with the physical aspects of survival, yes. So are you suggesting that God or belief falls into that same category? Maybe it achieves the same goal but here is where Occam's Razor comes in, if we already have art, why do we need to invent God?
We have a medium to express our higher mind, art, why do we need to believe in God? Unless belief is a form of art?
I guess ultimately I can see your point, but even if I were to agree that belief in God where a necessary part of survival, that doesn't make it anymore real.
September 18, 2007 at 5:21 PM
4am posts for-the-win.
Anyway, couldn't it be argued that one of the functions of art (broad use of the term) is to draw out the real from the abstract? That the interplay of ideas could create something, in essence, "real"?
I think what I meant isn't that "belief in God" is essential for man's survival. I especially don't mean it in the sense of the God of the Abrahamic religions. Five billion people seem to be getting along fine without it.
What I'm trying to clarify is an emphasis on the BELIEF over the IN GOD. I would very readily argue that it is feasible that belief could fill the same 'role,' as it were, as art. Just as our physical bodies hunger for nourishment, so do our minds hunger for stimulation.
It may be that, while belief in a higher power of whatever sort isn't necessary (as evidenced by, well, evidence), it's not unnecessary either.
To differentiate, I'm not talking at all about whether one should (or should not) believe in the Christian God, or Vishnu, or whatever the hell Scientology is all about, or animism, or _________. I only want to point out that it's likely an indefensible position to say that it is unnecessary (in the strict philosophical sense) for any human to believe in __________.
September 20, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Just for arguments sake
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
You'll notice that the third largest group is non-believers, 1.1 billion people that seem to be getting along fine without belief in _________.
Sure you could argue that they still belief in something! Science, humanity, nature something like that and you would be right. But it makes the point that the nature of our definition of belief, per this blog, is limited to belief in a religious and dogmatic deity of some kind.
I think this is a good example of how a lot of these arguments are based simply on how one defines words, or rather what limits one places on the definition of those words.
I wonder if I should put together a glossary of terms for this site and in what context we indent to use them.
September 20, 2007 at 9:51 PM
standardized language is a crutch.
i demand gladiatorial combat.
Post a Comment