Is evolution an argument for atheism?

(1) Look at the facts of what they did! It can be viewed as a very rare ability, hence replicable but rarely. (2) I do believe it's replicable, but not with unchanged minds and instruments such as scientists use. It takes character- and consciousness-change, under the guidance of teachers hard to find.

I'm open to the possibility that what they did actually happened, but this certainly isn't proof of god (I'm aware that this isn't what you're saying). At best, I think it's evidence of paranormal abilities, and simply demonstrates that our scientific understanding of the world is incomplete. And that is something which I believe any honest scientist will tell you.

If these things actually happen, I think that there is a possible natural explanation. I'm not saying I have that explanation, but that with time, we will come to understand what is going on here. I see no need to jump to supernatural or spiritual conclusions.

...karma and reincarnation maybe? As for "other beliefs" in general ... I like to think that everybody has their own way of "contacting" the same God. Contacts differ because "God" (an insufficient term for phenomena Higher than ourselves, so we never each know the whole, only an iota) is beyond real knowing. God can be thought of as Consciousness, a high element of Nature, All-Love, Male, He/Her - all are true in their way.

Regarding karma and reincarnation, is there anything in the way of evidence here? From what you've said, these clairvoyants have extraordinary abilities, but on what authority do they speak of an afterlife or karma?

Also, in the bolded text, the keyphrase there is "I like to think". Now perhaps I'm taking it out of context, but just because you "like to think" a certain way doesn't mean it's true. I may like to think of all sorts of unlikely and impossible things, but that doesn't make them real.

I do tend to get a bit ironic when concepts of God become concrete and limiting (evangelical Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses ... 🙂 ).

Don't we all 😀

In returning to the original topic of this thread, I would say that I maintain no belief in a god. By god, I mean a personal god which interacts with this world.

Theism is the belief in a personal god, and a-theism is the lack of that belief.

As for a god defined as nature, or love, or truth, and so on, I get bored. I think these definitions are meaningless. They seem to offer anything of practical value, but are mere soundbites which we feel comfortable believing.

I'm open to the possibility that what they did actually happened, but this certainly isn't proof of god (I'm aware that this isn't what you're saying). At best, I think it's evidence of paranormal abilities,

You'd get it if you read their books and there are many of them. I'm saying it's tangential proof of God, if they accurately saw quarks - since the same people were able to travel out-of-body at will, meet higher beings, and ultimately get as high as being able to report what it's like to get "higher and higher" in the planes of existence. They certainly encountered, if believed, gods and a Source of All.

Regarding karma and reincarnation, is there anything in the way of evidence here?

Oh goodness, I wouldn't know where to begin!! Many folks on HP would know the famous books on these subjects. There are books in which scores of people, under hypnosis, recall past lives. What's interesting is that no, they were not all Elizabeth I etc: it statistically worked out that they reported lives exactly back over time, demographically, that a random sample of past lives would give. Also books on people remembering "life-between-lives"; scores of cases in which children have taken their parents back to the town and home and family of their past life; many fascinating books by people who could spontaneously leave their bodies ....

Karma - no. :confused: How would one prove karma? Except that it's the flip side of why reincarnation occurs.

Too much to go into. You'd need the interest to look it all up yourself. 🙂

V

Hello Johnny,

Thank you for your post. It was very helpful getting to know you a bit more too. I knew you were on a spiritual journey. That’s great. Have you discovered Bruce Lipton yet? He's on the right path and is making exciting discoveries.

I too find the discoveries about the power of the human mind quite fascinating. But (there’s always a but with me!) while the human mind has huge potential and power, the one universal divine Mind is so far above that. For instance, when my mother was asked by an abusive, alcoholic asthmatic to help her through prayer, not only was he completely cured of both chronic and acute asthma, but after that was completely unable to ever again put either alcohol or tobacco to his lips and he became a changed character – redeemed. Mind over matter doesn’t do that. Mind over matter doesn’t tell dolphins to protect someone unconscious in the water, or impel someone else to sail out to where they are, against all logic. Mary Baker Eddy (who discovered Christian Science) wrote in the preface of Science and Health (our textbook):[COLOR="Blue"]

Many imagine that the phenomena of physical healing in Christian Science present only a phase of the action of the human mind, which action in some unexplained way results in the cure of disease. On the contrary, Christian Science rationally explains that all other pathological methods are the fruits of human faith in matter,--faith in the workings, not of Spirit, but of the fleshly mind which must yield to Science.

The physical healing of Christian Science results now, as in Jesus' time, from the operation of divine Principle, before which sin and disease lose their reality in human consciousness and disappear as naturally and as necessarily as darkness gives place to light and sin to reformation. Now, as then, these mighty works are not supernatural, but supremely natural.

Did you ever see the first Matrix movie? That explains Christian Science pretty well! It’s like this whole material existence is a dream, a mental imposition of limitation, when in reality, there is none. In C S there is a great saying that we are not in the body reconstruction business, but in the lie destruction business! We don’t try to fix the dream of life in matter, but to wake up from it.

At its zenith, pure science surely is absolute truth, but we have not reached that point yet. Again, won’t pure religion ultimately find its truth in unconditional Love? I believe that one day both will come together for they will find that they are the same.

Rather than Christian Science having to bend to the parameters of what is considered necessary for approval within the scientific and medical communities, this passage from a book written in 1947 sums it all up for me:

The time has come when it is an urgent necessity that science should look at the pattern of life as a whole, taking every factor into account and excluding nothing from its inquiry... Firstly, science must approach the problem in the spirit of relativity rather than of Newtonianism; it must look for patterns, with a readiness to recognise whole patterns, rather than for force-laws. It will no longer start with the presumption that certain events cannot happen, or must not happen, or ought not to happen, in the old force-law terminology; it will rather be content to ask simply whether the event did happen, or does happen, and if so, of what particular pattern it is the evidence. It will be on the look-out particularly for the evidence of faint patterns emerging into sudden prominence... Relativity rules nothing out a priori; it is not concerned with rules, it observes patterns - and if it sees them it does not shut its eyes.
from The Resurrection Pattern by Geoffrey Hoyland

More below

In answer to your question Johnny, yes, you could learn how to practice this entirely metaphysical science – it rests on universal laws that are there for everybody. After all, an atheist, a Moslem, a Christian can all learn and hopefully understand (though I’ve never been able to!) the laws of mathematics. Interestingly, mathematics is the one aspect of science that is completely metaphysical and its basis never changes, unlike other schools of science.

You know, physics deals with measuring time, space, matter, while metaphysics deals with the immeasurable; such as eternity, infinity and spiritual reality, which used to be seen as almost exclusively the domain of religion, but now that view is changing with quantum physics.

Science and Health, first published in 1975 contains the full teachings, but, it is written from the Christian perspective (Eddy found these spiritual laws in the Bible and through the words and works of Jesus) but have a read of Pierre Pradevand’s review of the book on page 14 of the Nov '09 Cygnus Review. I have put a link to it on this page:

He has a unique take on how to read it if you are not religious.

Eddy wrote:
[COLOR="Blue"]
Metaphysics is above physics, and matter does not enter into metaphysical premises or conclusions. The categories of metaphysics rest on one basis, the divine Mind. Metaphysics resolves things into thoughts, and exchanges the objects of sense for the ideas of Soul.

These ideas are perfectly real and tangible to spiritual consciousness, and they have this advantage over the objects and thoughts of material sense,--they are good and eternal. (Science and Health 269)

In fact, she goes further about matter:
[COLOR="Blue"]
Spirit is infinite; therefore Spirit is all. "There is no matter" is not only the axiom of true Christian Science, but it is the only basis upon which this Science can be demonstrated. (Miscellany 257)

Here’s an article that helps explain that premise. The author was dying of spinal tuberculosis:

[url]Spirit versus matter in healing[/url]
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]
My whole concept of matter and body had changed.
My healing of the split hand had left me with a firm conviction that there was no matter. But again, what was this matter that wasn’t? To my thought, matter was anything and everything I could physically see or touch. On the other hand, Spirit was abstract omnipresence without visible manifestation, as it seemed to me. So when I denied matter, I was actually denying man and the universe—all outward manifestation of Spirit….

I thought I knew Science and Health backward and forward, but following this visit I reread this textbook from cover to cover. It was like reading a new book. Passages I had glossed over were illumined. I saw that our consciousness of Spirit determines all true outward manifestation, and that matter is just the objectification of false belief. I saw how man, God’s image and likeness, is visible, tangible, and real, but is spiritual and not material. On completion of this reading, I found myself completely healed. The discharge had stopped, and the wound where it drained was gone. My back was painless and strong.

(only read as far as [COLOR="Blue"]"My whole concept of matter and body had changed." as after that he goes into history for some reason)

And here’s another one you might relate to:

[url]Now my heart sings[/url]

Impossible to sum up such an enormous topic in a few words, but hope some of it makes sense.

Judy

Though I'm sure you feel I've already said enough Johnny, just thought a little more clarification was needed here.

I'm sure you must admit that there is order, thus intelligence, that underlies the universe? Where do you think it comes from? Did it just evolve on its own? Where did beauty come from - or our capacity to appreciate it? Where does creativity come from, in the arts and architecture for instance? Where does love come from, how old is it? How did life come from dust - or, for that matter, what caused the big bang to bang? 😉 Surely, there has to be an underlying principle, an intelligence behind all this?

You have a somewhat "loose" definition of what or who god is. If I defined the word god is life, truth, and love then I would be a believer. You must understand, that the looser our definition becomes, the more meaningless the concept is.

My problem is generally with a personal god who intervenes with the world, cares about what happens, has a mind, feels love, and so on and on.

Not "has a mind" but is the universal Mind Itself - the Source of all intelligence. Not "feels love" but is Love Itself, which is reflected in infinite ways throughout creation.

But even Mary Baker Eddy who healed instantaneously and even raised the dead on a few occasions, with her understanding, had to come to that understanding through stages:
[COLOR="Blue"]
Do I believe in a personal God?
I believe in God as the Supreme Being. I know not what the person of omnipotence and omnipresence is, or what the infinite includes; therefore, I worship that of which I can conceive, first, as a loving Father and Mother; then, as thought ascends the scale of being to diviner consciousness, God becomes to me, as to the apostle who declared it, "God is Love,"--divine Principle,--which I worship; and "after the manner of my fathers, so worship I God." (Miscellaneous Writings 96)

Here are two of her definitions of God from Science and Health:

[url] http://www.spirituality.com/dt/book_lookup.jhtml?reference=587:05-08, 19-20[/url]

And, to explain better the passage I quoted above about metaphysics, which "... resolves things into thoughts, and exchanges the objects of sense for the ideas of Soul.", this experience may help to illustrate:

A woman was told by a dentist that she needed urgent dental surgery and he sent her to hospital with her X-rays. As she drove, she decided to spend the two hours before he had booked the surgery praying through expressing gratitude for the spiritual nature (or unseen reality) of everything that came into her experience during the time before the surgery.

She saw in the cars on the roads, symbols of mobility, agility, usefulness and comfort. She saw that the lines on the roads symbolised safety, control, order, harmony. Traffic lights spoke to her of obedience, perfection, alertness and honesty. As she looked at the houses, she saw originality, beauty, colour, design, substantiality and inspiration. Trees that gave shade and homes for animals, evidenced supply, provision, loveliness, purification of the universe.

When she arrived at the hospital, she continued to include and embrace everyone she met, with love. They took another set of X-rays, and the dentist examined her tooth, but could not believe his eyes as the new X-rays showed no need for surgery. In two hours, filled with love, gratitude and spiritual perception, the whole picture changed.

Originally from The Christian Science Journal, and taken from God, Physics and Metaphysics by J Geis.)

I could go on forever, but will now give you a break!

Judy

Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous. ~ Einstein

V 🙂

You have a somewhat "loose" definition of what or who god is. If I defined the word god is life, truth, and love then I would be a believer. You must understand, that the looser our definition becomes, the more meaningless the concept is.

I know I said I wasn't playing any more, but this jumped out at me. I'm not so learned as Principled as to try to give any kind of lengthy analysis. But to me, this is sort of the crux of the matter, as I think the opposite. The more one tries to tie "God" down to any specific definition understandable by mere mortals, the more meaningless the concept becomes.

I also fail to understand why I should have to defend anything. I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my way of thinking. Live and let live...

Reminds me of a blog entry a friend posted yesterday...

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Thanks Giles, I enjoyed your link.

I'm not so learned as Principled as to try to give any kind of lengthy analysis.

Hee hee - I left school at 16 Scott, but you make me feel like Prof McGonnegal in Harry Potter, with her high witches hat! 😀 Liked your post too!

Judy

PS What coincidence V?

PS What coincidence V?

Hi Judy,

Evolution is usually thought to be coincidental alterations within living creatures, the successful of which "stick".

(I've never seen a reason for the existence of evolution to discount God, in other words.)

V

:nature-smiley-008: Ah.. thanks V, got in at last. (See Scott - I'm not learned at all!)

Hey, where's the light bulb smilie gone?

Judy

Interview with Dr L Doyle

I could have given this its own thread, but it seemed to belong well on this thread. Those of you who have been here for a while will have heard me mention Dr Laurance Doyle - an astro-physicist who is also a Christian Scientist. He sees everything from the point of view of science, though admitting that he sometimes has to use religious phraseology to describe things! His insights are so fresh. I was delighted to find a radio interview with station KEST in the San Francisco area. This was part of their "Spiritual Perspectives" programme

He starts off talking a bit about SETI and how he has diversified into studying communications here on earth, particularly with humpback whales and dolphins. They have learnt that information theory applies to animal communications too.

He speaks of the conflict between quantum physics and physiology. How the quantum physicists have become reluctant metaphysicians, their discoveries leading to the realm of ideas where consciousness is substantial.

He gives us an example at the end, of how it is actually impossible to talk in real time between someone in California and someone else in New York, because sound travels at 700 m.p.h., so it would take 10 hours to get an answer. “Physics has its place, but limitation doesn’t. Limitations are what are not real.”

Dr Doyle’s interview is here. It’s about an hour but well worth listening to.

Enjoy!

Judy

Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism? This lecture argues that not only did Darwin believe in God, but today we can intelligently understand the nature of God without pushing aside scientific discoveries. Daniel looks beyond the popular evolution vs. creationism debate and explores the nature of God as a scientific reality.

Hi Judy,

I never once thought that science and faith are incompatible, The two fit together like a hand inside a glove. Evolution is a proven fact. Given that premise, then what is the nature of God, if not a proven fact? It must be so, for as all nature evolves, so must the Universe, and since God is the ultimate being, then He/She/It must surely evolve too. In other words, all nature moves on, it doesn't stand still, so therefore the nature of God must also move on.

Bit convoluted, but hope you get the idea.

Patsy.

David said:

That puts it into a nutshell for me. If there is a Higher Power (or Powers...) their influence upon this world is going to manifest through what are eventually material means. Evolution could easily be God's way of working some things out.

Says it all.

Patsy,

...and again:

(I've never seen a reason for the existence of evolution to discount God, in other words.)

Me neither.

...and again:

(I've never seen a reason for the existence of evolution to discount God, in other words.)

Me neither.

This depends on your view of what (a) god is.

Hi Judy,

I never once thought that science and faith are incompatible, The two fit together like a hand inside a glove. Evolution is a proven fact. Given that premise, then what is the nature of God, if not a proven fact? It must be so, for as all nature evolves, so must the Universe, and since God is the ultimate being, then He/She/It must surely evolve too. In other words, all nature moves on, it doesn't stand still, so therefore the nature of God must also move on.

Bit convoluted, but hope you get the idea.

Patsy.

Hi Patsy! Well, what a lovely surprise to see you here again! Gosh, this thread was started in 2009 and I don't suppose any of the links work anymore, but never mind.
To me, God is Life Itself, Love Itself, Truth Itself, constantly unfolding Itself to itself.

Though here she uses the term man, what Mary Baker Eddy means is the spiritual idea of God, which includes the spiritual dimension of the universe, including man:

Man is more than a material form with a mind inside, which must escape from its environments in order to be immortal. Man reflects infinity, and this reflection is the true idea of God.
God expresses in man the infinite idea forever developing itself, broadening and rising higher and higher from a boundless basis. (Science and Health 258)

Whatever seems to be a new creation, is but the discovery of some distant idea of Truth; else it is a new multiplication or self-division of mortal thought, as when some finite sense peers from its cloister with amazement and attempts to pattern the infinite. (S&H 263)

I love the imagery in the bottom bit! 😉

Judy

Hi Judy,

Great to be back!

Hi Crowan,

I have no idea what god is, but I am pretty sure he's not a white-bearded man on a throne. I think that image was created so that it made sense to the early Christians.

Evolution of species has happened since life began. I am a trained scientist (geologist) and I have seen many remarkable things, but very natural, in my studies of the earth. It was during a mapping exercise in the Massif Central region of France that I realised that all this must have come about not in any random fashion, but because nature wanted it to. Now, I think of god as Nature, I am not religious at all, not in the sense that most people think. To me, 'god' is within us, in nature, in rocks, plants and all life (the planet is a living being, too.) I don't hold with the view that god is some ever-loving being; it is sometimes brutal, casual and honest and that everything happens for a reason. I believe in angels, but not the white, fluffy beings with wings. Angels come in all guises, and not only for good things. Having personally witnessed them, I can honestly say that.

Being a scientist doesn't mean that one shouldn't hold theist beliefs on the basis that one has studied the natural world to an extent. Many scientists are church-goers, witches, shamans, mediums, and have a very strong faith.

We haven't yet touched on the power of the mind, what god is./isn't or what leads a person to believe what they do. Just because some things cannot be replicated in a laboratory, and that some experiences are entirely personal, doesn't negate those experiences; it just means that some have to wait for experiences of their own.

I know I'm speaking to you Crowan, and you are a shaman, but I don't know what you do for a living, as it were, in the working world, or how much of your shamanic side you portray in 'normal' life, but as nature evolves so belief (and therefore god) evolves along with it.

Patsy.

I have no idea what god is, but I am pretty sure he's not a white-bearded man on a throne. I think that image was created so that it made sense to the early Christians.

Whatever it is, there has to be a difference between ‘god’ and ‘a god’. Whether or not evolution disproves the existence of God (as an all-powerful creater), it does make ‘him’ unnecessary to an explanation of how the world and all in it came about. That is so whether we call ‘him’ God, Goddess, Great Spirit, Nature or anything else. Therefore it’s all down to what each individual feels comfortable with. I’m not comfortable with any all-powerful creator, while being very comfortable with many gods (including the Christian one, so long as no-one expects me to take any notice of him).

I know I'm speaking to you Crowan, and you are a shaman, but I don't know what you do for a living, as it were, in the working world, or how much of your shamanic side you portray in 'normal' life.

It’s what I do for a living. My ‘shamanic side’ is my ‘normal life’.

Hi Judy,

I've always thought it strange that certain fundamentalist Christians can't credit God with more imagination than the limited one they possess themselves, and atheists who think that evolution disproves the existence of God are only reacting to very simplistic evangelical interpretations of scripture and are equally limited in imagination.

Absolutely nailed what i have felt for some time. Its why common sense is sometimes lacking in a left brain imprisoned being.

Involution

This talk that I heard a couple of weeks ago is a good springboard for a discussion. I wasn't sure whether to put it here, on Philosophy, or on the General Faiths pages - please feel free to move it Mods.

Daniel asks several questions here, particularly, "Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism?", "What is truth?" and "What is science?"

In the 19thC, mathematics, metaphysics and theology were all included in what was termed "science".

[url]“Evolution, revolution: Exploring science and religion/spirituality”[/url] by Daniel Scott PhD

Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism? This lecture argues that not only did Darwin believe in God, but today we can intelligently understand the nature of God without pushing aside scientific discoveries. Daniel looks beyond the popular evolution vs. creationism debate and explores the nature of God as a scientific reality.

Judy

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Evolution?

What about involution ???