I was just recently in a conversation where someone expressed to me how conflicted she is between her faith and the idea of evolution. This seems to come up a lot around me.

I have spent a long time trying to understand the appeal of Christianity since I was brought up without it. I finally came to the conclusion that it isn't as complex as people make it out to be and I don't disagree with the fundamental philosophy.

I have seen evolution happening first hand. If one is observant he or she can see it happening in many areas. One place it can be seen is in organisms which have short life spans. Minute changes can be observed over the generations that demonstrate the traits organisms take on in order to adapt to an environment (at least the ones that survive and are best suited for the environment). Another example is how us humans adapt to our changing environment. These observations are obvious but are either lost or ignored by many Christians. This is not the fault of Christianity but the failure of Christians to fully understand their own deity.

So what is the fundamental philosophy of Christianity? It's very simple. The story of Christ (and perhaps the moral) is that he was able to forgive and love those that offended him the most thus setting himself free or saving himself. The salvation that he offers is to live free of the burdens of hurt and torment replacing them with feelings of love, compassion, and forgiveness for everyone, even those that seem to hurt you the most. This will free one to experience life in a more full or abundant way. There is no judgement or persecution required.

So knowing this one can observe nature with an open mind and accept the evidence that the tool of the scientific method provides. There is no certainty but there is at least an ease of allowing the observable data to sink in and make sense.

There, no conflict, no fighting, simple and easy mesh of the two topics.

Christianity could make a lot of sense... except the Bible.

I agree. This is where the confusion and problem lies. There are new laws that voided the old testament in the book of Paul. Jesus said the only law one needs is to love others as themselves. The whole point of the savior was to save us from the brutality of the old testament and the persecution that was being administered.

God did say, in the old testament, that vengeance shall be his but it also says to put a lot of people to death for crimes or offenses and rules for slavery. Jesus really does save us from that stuff but apparently is being ignored by many Christians.

There is something else I wanted to mention. There seems to be an inherent need for many if not all humans to believe in irrational ideas. Perhaps this has served a purpose in our evolution. We are animals, after all, and it would seem one of our instincts is to form "tribes" that show "devotion" by villainizing non-tribe members. It's complex but seemingly an uncontrollable compulsion even though it is known that more can be gained through cooperation than through competition.

Ironclad wrote:Religion may be simple but reality offers much more beauty. Let's not try and blend BS with science, it's a poor mix.

Sounds like you are closing yourself off from this topic by not accepting the nature of religion. It does exist whether you like it or not. If you want to appreciate the beauty of the natural world you should understand that we are part of that beauty and nature.

The hormones and neurotransmitters that are working during a group prayer come from nature. Haha but it just occurred to me that bovine excrement is natural too! Ha it is full of biology and life! Perhaps you should broaden your scope of what you consider to be real.

BTW how do you know when something is real? I thought our interpretation of data is limited by our capacity to observe with our senses. Quantum physics is still in it's infancy and we are on the cutting edge of understanding what is really going on at that level. We still have not come up with a unification theory that encompasses all of the fundamental forces of nature either so even our best brains can't completely explain what is really going on yet. Perhaps you have some insight that I don't.

I'm not saying you're wrong.. I'm just thinking that what you said is an oversimplification of the subjects. You may have some personal feelings that are triggered here, yes?

renaissavant wrote:
There is something else I wanted to mention. There seems to be an inherent need for many if not all humans to believe in irrational ideas. Perhaps this has served a purpose in our evolution. We are animals, after all, and it would seem one of our instincts is to form "tribes" that show "devotion" by villainizing non-tribe members. It's complex but seemingly an uncontrollable compulsion even though it is known that more can be gained through cooperation than through competition.

Let us not confuse a tendency with a need. Humans tending to veer into irrationality does not speak to a need so much as it speaks to a property of being human. My poorly-aligned car does not need to veer off the road when I take my hands off the steering wheel. That's just how it works right now.

I no more need to be irrational than I need to be right-handed. They're not examples of a decision made to fill a need. They're examples of superfluous traits arising from my biological development. They are things I compensate for, not strengths or decisions.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

renaissavant wrote:
There is something else I wanted to mention. There seems to be an inherent need for many if not all humans to believe in irrational ideas. Perhaps this has served a purpose in our evolution. We are animals, after all, and it would seem one of our instincts is to form "tribes" that show "devotion" by villainizing non-tribe members. It's complex but seemingly an uncontrollable compulsion even though it is known that more can be gained through cooperation than through competition.

Let us not confuse a tendency with a need. Humans tending to veer into irrationality does not speak to a need so much as it speaks to a property of being human. My poorly-aligned car does not need to veer off the road when I take my hands off the steering wheel. That's just how it works right now.

I no more need to be irrational than I need to be right-handed. They're not examples of a decision made to fill a need. They're examples of superfluous traits arising from my biological development. They are things I compensate for, not strengths or decisions.

Interesting. I did use the word need. I think that it appears to be a trait rather than a need. It is a motivator and perhaps that is why that trait has lasted. Strong beliefs have built huge monuments, buildings, and perhaps even civilizations. What motivates more than sex and belief? haha

Ironclad wrote:

renaissavant wrote:

Ironclad wrote:Religion may be simple but reality offers much more beauty. Let's not try and blend BS with science, it's a poor mix.

I'm not saying you're wrong.. I'm just thinking that what you said is an oversimplification of the subjects. You may have some personal feelings that are triggered here, yes?

It was an oversimplification, it was just one line after all.

Also, you edited your post. You were nice, then you were horrid. Stop touching my emotions..

Haha, you noticed! I liked what you said but I didn't want to negate what my argument was. But here's the thing: are you against forgiveness, love, and tolerance? I'm not.

There there, it will be okay my dear... hugs. haha

renaissavant wrote:But here's the thing: are you against forgiveness, love, and tolerance? I'm not.

I am, however, against any organization or group of people claiming that their particular brand of irrationality invented those things or makes anyone better at those things. I'm also against any organization or group of people claiming that persons outside their group or organization aren't as good at those things or refuse to join their group or organization because they don't like those things.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People don't seem to change themselves to fit their religious ideals. Rather we see them tailoring their understanding of religion to fit themselves.

Religion is not a need, not a drive, not a motivator. It takes credit for being these things. But we do not observe persons without religion being any more needy, less driven or more motivated. We cannot demonstrate that it does anything except redistribute wealth and provide another line for otherwise unqualified persons to obtain and exercise authority.

I'm not blaming religion for ills in the world, either. That would be saying it actually does something. But I really don't see it as useful at ALL- not for making good people or bad people. It is a sterile idea. It receives credit and blame, but it deserves neither.

Edited for grammar. I am my own grammar Nazi.

Well... hmmm. I think we've taken a turn. I wasn't trying to demonstrate the need for religion or organizations that use dogma for personal gain. It certainly is a side issue. You have clearly taken a side. I don't see a need to even do that. Things just are the way they are. I simply observe. I don't see things in terms of good and bad since that would require a judgement. The belief that organized religion is a bad thing is a dogma in itself further proving that no one is exempt from the need to judge or follow their ideals. Make sense now?

Ironclad wrote:No. Though it does to you.

Sides though, they can be a relevant choice, in the light of bias.

But now, i'm not sure if I have veered the topic away from your intended direction - or if you are yankin' my chain; so i'm out (to lurk).

No that comment wasn't meant for you. I meant that for the comment before yours. My first post said that the whole fundamental philosophy of Christianity is forgiveness, tolerance, and love... maybe you missed that?

I think the word 'twat' is hilarious! Thanks for breaking the vulgar barrier! Can we talk about sex now? What is so impure about sex? I don't see how sex or sexuality can in any way be wrong unless of course it hurts others. I know the story of Sodom and Gamora but what purpose does that serve? Now I'm just venting!

What is meant by lurking?

renaissavant wrote:
No that comment wasn't meant for you. I meant that for the comment before yours. My first post said that the whole fundamental philosophy of Christianity is forgiveness, tolerance, and love... maybe you missed that?

That's an easy thing to miss when you don't use the quote function. I missed it, too.

Well... hmmm. I think we've taken a turn. I wasn't trying to demonstrate the need for religion or organizations that use dogma for personal gain. It certainly is a side issue. You have clearly taken a side. I don't see a need to even do that. Things just are the way they are. I simply observe. I don't see things in terms of good and bad since that would require a judgement. The belief that organized religion is a bad thing is a dogma in itself further proving that no one is exempt from the need to judge or follow their ideals. Make sense now?

Since this was meant for me, let me point you to this bit of the post you're responding to:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:I'm not blaming religion for ills in the world, either. That would be saying it actually does something. But I really don't see it as useful at ALL- not for making good people or bad people. It is a sterile idea. It receives credit and blame, but it deserves neither.

What I seem to be saying here is that religion has no value at all. That claiming it has any value implies a bias- whether you are claiming it has a positive or a negative value. That is, unless you have had access to something which could be considered evidence that religion has ANY value at all. Pro or con. I don't really care which- either would be fascinating. Understand that I like to keep within the rules of evidence for science at best or law at worst. If evidence doesn't meet the minimum standards for one of those, please forgive me in advance for ignoring it.

What you seem to be saying is: Religion is at least okay because it includes forgiveness, love and tolerance (and the last one is debatable!). So what? Those are not religious products. Those are human products. All (clinically sane) humans have them. Thus religion is superfluous and, insomuch as it tries to claim it invented these things, wrong.

Superfluous things are neither good things nor bad things. There are many superfluous things I quite enjoy. Architectural design elements are superfluous. That doesn't mean I wander around making crude gestures at old buildings. I quite like many architectural design elements.

When you said:

Strong beliefs have built huge monuments, buildings, and perhaps even civilizations.

I would both agree and disagree. Strong egos build these things (monuments, buildings, other penis extensions). Human nature builds civilizations. Both of these can be blamed on religious ideals, but neither of them can be shown to be caused by religious ideals. I would even put forward that wasting resources on monuments and buildings goes against the bits of christian mythology which include forgiveness, love and charity. Because there has never been a monument-building era in the history of the Earth in which people weren't sick, hungry, homeless or all three. Nevertheless, christians wasted resources on monumental buildings and ignored those people. This is an excellent example of people subverting religion to serve their personal needs rather than allowing religious ideals to shape their behavior.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

renaissavant wrote:
No that comment wasn't meant for you. I meant that for the comment before yours. My first post said that the whole fundamental philosophy of Christianity is forgiveness, tolerance, and love... maybe you missed that?

That's an easy thing to miss when you don't use the quote function. I missed it, too.

Well... hmmm. I think we've taken a turn. I wasn't trying to demonstrate the need for religion or organizations that use dogma for personal gain. It certainly is a side issue. You have clearly taken a side. I don't see a need to even do that. Things just are the way they are. I simply observe. I don't see things in terms of good and bad since that would require a judgement. The belief that organized religion is a bad thing is a dogma in itself further proving that no one is exempt from the need to judge or follow their ideals. Make sense now?

Since this was meant for me, let me point you to this bit of the post you're responding to:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:I'm not blaming religion for ills in the world, either. That would be saying it actually does something. But I really don't see it as useful at ALL- not for making good people or bad people. It is a sterile idea. It receives credit and blame, but it deserves neither.

What I seem to be saying here is that religion has no value at all. That claiming it has any value implies a bias- whether you are claiming it has a positive or a negative value. That is, unless you have had access to something which could be considered evidence that religion has ANY value at all. Pro or con. I don't really care which- either would be fascinating. Understand that I like to keep within the rules of evidence for science at best or law at worst. If evidence doesn't meet the minimum standards for one of those, please forgive me in advance for ignoring it.

What you seem to be saying is: Religion is at least okay because it includes forgiveness, love and tolerance (and the last one is debatable!). So what? Those are not religious products. Those are human products. All humans have them. Thus religion is superfluous and, insomuch as it tries to claim it invented these things, wrong.

Superfluous things are neither good things nor bad things. There are many superfluous things I quite enjoy. Architectural design elements are superfluous. That doesn't mean I wander around making crude gestures at old buildings. I quite like many architectural design elements.

When you said:

Strong beliefs have built huge monuments, buildings, and perhaps even civilizations.

I would both agree and disagree. Strong egos build these things (monuments, buildings, other penis extensions). Human nature builds civilizations. Both of these can be blamed on religious ideals, but neither of them can be shown to be caused by religious ideals. I would even put forward that wasting resources on monuments and buildings goes against the bits of christian mythology which include forgiveness, love and charity. Because there has never been a monument-building era in the history of the Earth in which people weren't sick, hungry, homeless or all three. Nevertheless, christians wasted resources on monumental buildings and ignored those people. This is an excellent example of people subverting religion to serve their personal needs rather than allowing religious ideals to shape their behavior.

Well I understand what you mean by not serving a purpose but that seems a bit strong of an argument. To be that certain about anything requires a high level of faith. Not faith in a practiced religion but in your interpretation of them.

The origins of altruism come from millions of years of evolution no doubt. Altruism can be observed in other animals and they do not practice an organized religion for sure.

I think the point I was trying to make is that you yourself are demonstration a powerful belief in something. I don't know what you hope to accomplish by taking this stand. I am enjoying the conversation and curious as to where it will lead. What is your motivation? You seem to be trying to convince me to take your side, am I wrong about this?

renaissavant wrote:
Well I understand what you mean by not serving a purpose but that seems a bit strong of an argument. To be that certain about anything requires a high level of faith. Not faith in a practiced religion but in your interpretation of them.

To choose to reject a claim that is often made without evidence in favor of its null is simply called critical thinking. It requires no faith at all. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to attribute faith to me. I would be happy to revise my view were anyone to present me with reasonable evidence to the standards of science or law that I'm wrong. That's not how most people have told me I should do faith.

The origins of altruism come from millions of years of evolution no doubt. Altruism can be observed in other animals and they do not practice an organized religion for sure.

No argument from me here.

I think the point I was trying to make is that you yourself are demonstration a powerful belief in something. I don't know what you hope to accomplish by taking this stand. I am enjoying the conversation and curious as to where it will lead. What is your motivation? You seem to be trying to convince me to take your side, am I wrong about this?

Really? I'm demonstrating a powerful belief? Could you spell that out for me? Because I have clearly stated religion is neither a positive nor a negative driver of human behavior. That is the very model of a null hypothesis in scientific thinking. I'm not starting with the claim that religion has a positive effect. I'm not starting with the claim that religion has a negative effect. I'm starting with the idea that religion has any effect at all and choosing to go with its null until I encounter evidence.

Have you any reason at all I should feel comfortable rejecting the null hypothesis?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

renaissavant wrote:
Well I understand what you mean by not serving a purpose but that seems a bit strong of an argument. To be that certain about anything requires a high level of faith. Not faith in a practiced religion but in your interpretation of them.

To choose to reject a claim that is often made without evidence in favor of its null is simply called critical thinking. It requires no faith at all. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to attribute faith to me. I would be happy to revise my view were anyone to present me with reasonable evidence to the standards of science or law that I'm wrong. That's not how most people have told me I should do faith.

The origins of altruism come from millions of years of evolution no doubt. Altruism can be observed in other animals and they do not practice an organized religion for sure.

No argument from me here.

I think the point I was trying to make is that you yourself are demonstration a powerful belief in something. I don't know what you hope to accomplish by taking this stand. I am enjoying the conversation and curious as to where it will lead. What is your motivation? You seem to be trying to convince me to take your side, am I wrong about this?

Really? I'm demonstrating a powerful belief? Could you spell that out for me? Because I have clearly stated religion is neither a positive nor a negative driver of human behavior. That is the very model of a null hypothesis in scientific thinking. I'm not starting with the claim that religion has a positive effect. I'm not starting with the claim that religion has a negative effect. I'm starting with the idea that religion has any effect at all and choosing to go with its null until I encounter evidence.

Have you any reason at all I should feel comfortable rejecting the null hypothesis?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by purpose. One could argue that our existence serves no purpose but what would be the point. There are reasons for things like our existence, architecture, and for religion. The first seems to be a product of eons of chemical reactions and transference of energy. I can't prove that but that is what I have come to understand from my life experience. Architecture seems to come from human expression and some creative process that also comes from eons of evolution of a human trait to build and the desire to make an environment aesthetically pleasing. Religion or to practice an religion has origins in evolution as well. Humans have the capacity to ask questions and also to be creative. Some parts of religion probably come from the desire to teach lessons and some to control others. These may be in vain but legends and myths last and evolve as they are translated. There is an aesthetics to creating knowledge in these areas too. They represent eons of small contributions by men and women that like to create ideas, stories, and exercises. There are probably countless reasons for religion and no two religious experiences are the same like no two brains are the same. The idea of good and bad is a something you've brought up a few times which is why I liken you to a believer. I am not arguing that there is real purpose for anything. If you have scientific pursuits then perhaps going to a church and praying for a desired outcome is not for you but if it give you comfort to look for certainties then I don't think you are much different from your garden variety Christian hoping to find truth... which seems somewhat futile given our lack of intellectual power. We may be able to peek into the unknown farther and farther with each new experiment but this will be going on long after we are all gone.

Religion is a practice. In the repetition of a practice one can experience highs that are similar to the use of drugs. There are some things that I like to practice just for that high. It is fun. I don't take it quite a seriously as others perhaps but I would be very upset if someone tried to take what I enjoy away from me. The purpose that my practices serve are purely selfish but I wonder what isn't? Altruism give a high when activating the generousness feelings in my brain and body. I love to give for the rush of it. Is that selfish? I think it may be.