• Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      Which is a bit silly to me, in that any religious person could simply explain evolution away as the mechanism by which a god or gods created humanity (to iterate on form until creating their supposed “perfect image”).

      God being a human who was also his own father is fine, but the suggestion that evolution could be part of god’s plan is where we draw the line?

      • halowpeano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        They had to reject it because any religion with a creation myth specifically says how the god created people. To accept an alternative story would reject the notion of the book as truth.

        The religious are not looking for answers, they already have all the answers by definition of their holy book or whatever. They’re looking for confirmation bias and reject anything that goes against that.

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Nope. In Islam, God commands His servants to seek knowledge in all things. Muslims are obligated to seek knowledge because it will only continue to prove the existence of God.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you’re talking specifically about the Abrahamic God, sure. But if it’s about the existence of any higher being, then there’s no contradiction here.

            • howrar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Anything that you would call a “god”.

              If I give an ostensive definition, I would say it includes the beings like the Abrahamic god, or Olympian gods, and exclude humans, animals, bacteria, the planet we live on, and objects we handle in our day to day lives. I’ll tentatively draw the line at any being that is not bound to the laws of physics as we understand them today.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Why exclude humans, animals and bacteria? How about Sun? Jesus Christ? God-King Jayavarman II? A cat? Very small spirit of tiny stream? A holy stone (stone is not a human, nor animal or bacteria, a lot of stones were worshipped in various forms and meanings in history)? A tree chewed by pilgrims? Invisible Hand of the Market?

                Incredibly arbitrary definition again constructed to wriggle your way from any concrete statement.

                • theilleist@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  If we had the technological power, would humans run simulations of universes with Planck length precision? Obviously yes. So extrapolating from our one and only example of intelligent life (us), it seems like intelligent life enjoys stimulating universes. If our reality were the result of that kind of project, and the engineers lived outside the laws of physics, I would call them higher beings. And they could be as hands-off or as interventionist as they pleased.

                  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Sure that’s a valid defintion, albeit a super specific one and it directly exclude all (or almost all) known forms of religion on Earth.

                • howrar@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I don’t think OP is asking about the existence of humans, or animals, or any other physical entity. If they were, you can trivially say that you exist, and therefore god exists. That’s unless you want to go into ontology and question what it means to “exist”, which I’m pretty sure also isn’t what OP intended.

                  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I didn’t asked about OP, i asked YOU to define it and you are weaseling out of it continously, you cannot even answer why did you exclude humans, animals and bacteria from your definition, while humans and animals have been historically worshipped in many cases.

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        any religious person could simply explain evolution away as the mechanism by which a god or gods created humanity

        Many did, and this position is called Deism. In most versions, god(s) started the universe with initial conditions that would lead to the formation of intelligent life, and then withdrew.

      • johsny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Could be, but evolution makes God redundant, and then it is the whole simplest explanation thing that kicks in, right?

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Occam’s razor doesn’t mean that the simplest explanation is always true, but rather that it’s usually the most likely to be true.

          Using simplicity as a measure of how likely something is to be true always felt a little anthropocentric. How do we determine that something is simple if not via the systems and abstractions that are easy for human minds to comprehend?

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          No… not necessarily. Why can’t God command the creation of something and then allow the natural process to create said thing? Evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of God.

          • oo1@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            The “god” part becomes an unnecessarily complex explanation. I prefer simpler explanations when they fit the data just as well as the complex ones. It also reduces te risk when trying to broaden out to other lines of enquiry.

            As johsny said It makes the god explanation redundant for the large topic of species of life. There’s no need to waste time or energy “disproving” god. The whole concept of god is simply useless to understanding - and so is a waste of time or mental energy.

            But the so called explanations referncing god are typically such bullshit anyway nothing testable, no evidence, just “god did some shit”, “isn’t god cool/powerful”. So they never were actually useful to scientific reasoning. However much they may pretend otherwise religions are so much more aligned with laws and social structures and norms of behaviour than they are about advancing science.

          • BitSound@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            At some point you’re advocating for Deism. Which is fine enough, but doesn’t really provide any satisfactory answers. You need to define exactly what you mean by “God” before any further useful conversation can be had.

            The scientific process, including evolution, has dispelled the myths found in any religious textbook ever written, including their particular definitions of “God”. I’d suggest you just drop the word and the associated baggage, and start from scratch. Come up with a new word, and define properties for it that make a coherent argument.

            • StaySquared@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Well for one, I would recommend you drop the idea of what is God from the Christian perspective, they’re clueless. That much is true. Islam is far superior in terms of intellect and sophistication, after all the Quran is the literal Word of God. Unlike the Bible, authored by pagan and anti-Christ men who had a liking to Egyptian mythologies.

              (Quran 21:30) Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the Earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe?

              (Quran 24:45) And Allah has created from water every living creature. Some of them crawl on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Surely Allah is Most Capable of everything.

              (Quran 64:3) He designed you then made your design better.

              (Quran 40:64) He formed you then made your forms better.

              (Quran 71:17) And Allah has caused you to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth.

              (Quran 76:28) We created them and strengthened their forms.

              (Quran 82:6-9) O mankind, what has deceived you concerning your Lord, the Generous, Who created you, then proportioned you, and then balanced you; in whatever form He willed has He assembled you.

              Going to be blunt, if you read these verses (and there’s more verses) and don’t believe that this aligns with a creation of something, which in turn evolves (strengthens in its form) then it was meant to be. There’s nothing under the sun I could tell you that will pique your interest.

              God has Willed it. This is the way.

              • BitSound@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                He designed you then made your design better. He formed you then made your forms better. We created them and strengthened their forms.

                That’s not how any of this works. None of these require the process of biological evolution, they’re clearly written as the islamic equivalent of intelligent design. Those describe some wizard creating something and then working to make it better, which is the opposite of how biological evolution works. Relying on “evolves” having several different meanings (evolves (strengthens in its form)) is not an argument that is made in good faith. The process of biological evolution is not described in any religious literature, including yours.

                And Allah has created from water every living creature

                I assume you bolded this because it’s important somehow. It’s not, though. It’s a vague allegory that has no predictive power, is not science, and has nothing to do with the process of biological evolution.

                • StaySquared@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Religions don’t teach science. However, in Islam, we are obligated to learn science amongst other subjects. The verses you and I quoted do NOT conflict with evolution.

                  Many scientists believe that life on Earth originated in the ocean, and that all life was aquatic for the first 90% of Earth’s history. Some scientists think that life may have begun near deep sea hydrothermal vents, which are chimney-like vents that form when seawater mixes with magma on the ocean floor, creating superheated plumes. The chemicals and energy from these vents could have fueled chemical reactions that led to the evolution of life. For example, a 2017 study found tube-like fossils in rocks that are at least 3.77 billion years old that resemble microorganisms that live near hydrothermal vents today.

                  Furthermore, using the DNA sequences of modern organisms, biologists have tentatively traced the most recent common ancestor of all life to an aquatic microorganism that lived in extremely high temperatures — a likely candidate for a hydrothermal vent inhabitant!

                  But like I said before, there’s nothing under the sun that I can tell you that will sway you.

                  • BitSound@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Those verses don’t conflict with evolution. They don’t conflict with anything, because they don’t mean anything. What scientific advancements happened because of those verses? None, because science advanced to the point where we understood how evolution works, and some religious people copied their homework and went looking for meaning after the fact. If those verses meant something, there would have been centuries of progress on evolution before Darwin. There wasn’t.

                    There’s plenty of things you can convince me of, you just have to provide evidence, which you haven’t done.

                    What could I say that would sway you into realizing that your religion is as silly as the rest? If the answer is nothing under the sun, then you’re using a cheap rhetorical trick of projecting your intellectual shortcomings onto other people in order to make yourself feel better about them.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        If you squint real hard, the first creation myth in Genisis is pretty close to evolution.