Would Jesus believe … in Evolution?

[KLA2]

... “What would Jesus believe about origins?”

And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/1 ... =allsearch

I tend to think not.

Assuming Jesus was/is as the Bible says, I think He was not omniscient, like his Father. At least, not until after His tragic death.

Believing in, or accepting the reality of evolution requires years of education and an understanding of scientific facts and proofs that were simply not available to Him.

Even Charles Darwin (a deeply religious man) wrestled with whether he was right, or should reveal facts and conclusions that would undermine Biblical dogma. To his credit he did, but not all the credit goes to him.

If he had not, others would have. The proof was there to see, and in a scientific age, could not be repressed and forever denied.

Evolution, of course, does not disprove the existence of God(s), or Jesus, just legends made up millennia ago and eventually printed in the Bible.

I am sure God would say, “They finally figured out how I really did it, why don’t they give Me credit?”

[Lance]

I am sure God would say, “They finally figured out how I really did it, why don’t they give Me credit?”

Stolen!

[Blue Monster 65]

I am not so sure that one believes "in" evolution as one believes evolution.

Also, before the Council of Nicene, weren't God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit three separate entities? I seem to recall they were, but that was one of the changes the Council made to differentiate Christianity from other religions of the time, if I remember correctly. Anyway one looks at it (three entities or three separate parts of one), wouldn't their powers be the same?

[MM_Dandy]

Assuming Jesus was/is as the Bible says, I think He was not omniscient, like his Father. At least, not until after His tragic death.

So, you're an Adoptionist, eh? Perhaps there's hope for you, yet. ;)

Who knows? In the context of the article, the question really is "What would the Jesus of modern times believe?" The questions before ask "What car would Jesus drive?" and "Who would Jesus vote for?" Given a modern education, I have no idea what Jesus would say about evolution. Probably something clever like "Render unto Darwin..." I do know that many who consider themselves Christians accept modern evolutionary theory as truth, and yet still hold religious beliefs as a matter of faith (ie. what they consider truthful, yet not provable as fact). As far as I'm concerned, the salvation of my soul does not rely upon accepting or rejecting evolution. It's not a deal-breaker. As the author of the article basically says: the facts are simple, very consistent, and lead to the conclusion of evolution.

[Мастер]

Also, before the Council of Nicene, weren't God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit three separate entities?

There were different beliefs on this point before, and Council of Nicea did not settle the matter in everyone's eyes :P

The bishop Arius, who gave his name to Arianism, believed that God the Son was the creation, and somewhat inferior to, God the Father, and did not exist prior to that time. For some time, even after the Council of Nicea, it looked like Arianism might become the dominant form of Christianity, but in the end, Trinitarianism won out.

Wikipedia on Arianism

[KLA2]

Actually, MM_Dandy, I have always assumed the question WWJD referred to the Biblical Jesus magically transported to modern society, not a modern-educated Jesus that had always lived amoung us in current times.

That kind of destroys the concept of the thought experiment.

An "Adoptionist?" Is that the opposite of a "Birther?"

[Blue Monster 65]

That sounds about right.

Honestly, it's been 25+ years since I read/studied any of that nonsense. Ironically, the priest I studied under was probably the least "religious" man I've ever met: I think he was a priest because he thought he could help people without having a degree in medicine or psychology. More than once, he'd be pointing some contridiction out and would just casually say, "It's all just bullshit - it's supposed to make you a better person." I respected that.

[St. Jimmy]

"It's all just bullshit - it's supposed to make you a better person."

That has been my official take on religion for the past 3 years. It's all just hypocritical, fictional bedtime stories that are just meant to drive you to become a better person morally. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[MM_Dandy]

Actually, MM_Dandy, I have always assumed the question WWJD referred to the Biblical Jesus magically transported to modern society, not a modern-educated Jesus that had always lived amoung us in current times.

That kind of destroys the concept of the thought experiment.

But we're not talking about the question in general, we're talking about the author's particular spin on the hypothetical:

We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive?

(Emphasis added). To me, he's asking questions about a modern-day Jesus. On the other hand, though, if Jesus is omniscient, it doesn't make any difference what time he lives in (but then that begs the question of how I'm supposed to know everything... I mean, I do a fair job of acting like I do and all...)

An "Adoptionist?" Is that the opposite of a "Birther?"

Sort of; more like the opposite of begottener. Adoptionism

[Мастер]

Sort of; more like the opposite of begottener. Adoptionism

Wow, that's a new one by me.

Somewhere I've got a book on the early history of Christianity, I have to look it up.

[Heid the Ba]

[There were different beliefs on this point before, and Council of Nicea did not settle the matter in everyone's eyes :P

The Great Schism of 1054 was essentially over this when neither side would back down over a typo. It was all to do with the nature of the Holy Spirit and whether is passed from God through the son or from God and the Son.

The Filioque Clause.

[Blue Monster 65]

That has been my official take on religion for the past 3 years. It's all just hypocritical, fictional bedtime stories that are just meant to drive you to become a better person morally. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Eh - my take has long been that organized religion (and superstition in general) is meant to keep you obedient and subservient. Any positive philosophy is secondary.

But then again, that's pretty negative and it really doesn't affect my outlook on life until these sorts of discussions come up. Frankly, I'm just happy to be here and damned lucky I am where I am. I mean, I could have been born in rural Afghanistan and not had the wherewithal to think like I do.

[Мастер]

Eh - my take has long been that organized religion (and superstition in general) is meant to keep you obedient and subservient. Any positive philosophy is secondary.

But then again, that's pretty negative and it really doesn't affect my outlook on life until these sorts of discussions come up. Frankly, I'm just happy to be here and damned lucky I am where I am. I mean, I could have been born in rural Afghanistan and not had the wherewithal to think like I do.

I think religious people are a pretty diverse lot, like areligious people :)

In some places in medieval Europe, joining the church was more or less standard fare for the second son of a family, and they used their positions to pursue power and wealth. Other people from wealthy backgrounds voluntarily devoted their lives to charity - not just writing a small cheque from time to time, but giving up their comfortable existence, and working hard for the benefit of some of the most wretched people on earth. Heretics have been tortured and killed - whatever we may think of them, they wouldn't have ended up that way if they were obedient and subservient!

I think it's hard to paint such a large group with one brush.

[Blue Monster 65]

I think religious people are a pretty diverse lot, like areligious people :) ... I think it's hard to paint such a large group with one brush.

I can agree with that, but for the sake of being difficult, I'll also stand by my statement. Once a managing hierarchy is introduced, problems arise.

In some places in medieval Europe, joining the church was more or less standard fare for the second son of a family, and they used their positions to pursue power and wealth. Other people from wealthy backgrounds voluntarily devoted their lives to charity - not just writing a small cheque from time to time, but giving up their comfortable existence, and working hard for the benefit of some of the most wretched people on earth. Heretics have been tortured and killed - whatever we may think of them, they wouldn't have ended up that way if they were obedient and subservient!

I'm not sure I follow you here - are you implying people only do good things because of their religion or ... ?

[Мастер]

I'm not sure I follow you here - are you implying people only do good things because of their religion or ... ?

I don't know how that comes out of this. I gave examples of people who got involved in religion for rather mercenary purposes, and of religious people who have been very altruistic (whether the religion causes the altruism is another question). I also mentioned religious people who were sufficiently non-subservient and non-obedient as be tortured and killed for their beliefs. The paragraph was totally silent on what non-religious people do or do not do, or what their motives are.

[Blue Monster 65]

Ah! I see - I didn't get that you were implying that the people in the second sentence of the paragraph paragraph were supposed to be related in any sense to the people of the first (there's no mention of them being religious or not, causing my confusion).

I'm still not sure what their individual beliefs have to do with my assertion that once a system of "governors" (religious hierarchy) is basically concerned with controlling the followers. If anything, the fact that those who question the ones in power were killed and/or tortured would seem to (at least partially) support my postion.

[Мастер]

If anything, the fact that those who question the ones in power were killed and/or tortured would seem to (at least partially) support my postion.

Both the people administering and those receiving the torture are religious, are they not? One person is exerting authority, the other is resisting it. Is there any reason to focus on one at the exclusion of the other, and say, "this is what religion is about"? What would you say to someone who looks at the exact same situation, and declares, religion is about heroic opposition to oppression, it is about standing up for your beliefs even when the price is the highest one anyone ever has to pay, and the fact that some people cynically exploit religion to suit their own purposes doesn't change that? Does this example support the one position better than the other?

I don't see a need to put a single face on a phenomenon that is different things to different people.

What is business about? Is it a source of employment, that provides people with income, to feed their families and buy medicine when they are sick? Is it a source of a huge variety of products and services, allowing a large part of the world's population to enjoy standards of living unimaginable a couple of centuries ago? Or are businesses vehicles for the relentless pursuit of profit? Are businesses organisations that put addictive substances in cigarettes to make it hard for their customers to quit? Are businesses criminal enterprises that commit fraud and deception, that dump pollution in the river and lie about it afterwards? Are businesses organisations that attempt to manipulate and control the political process for the benefit of their owners?

There are some characterisations of business, some very positive and noble sounding, some not so much. Are business one of these things, or a complex blend of all of them? Why do we need to pick one? For either business or religion?

[Blue Monster 65]

I should respond when I have more than a couple of minutes to type, but here goes a quickie:

Yes, you're right when both are religious, but what about when one is tortured because they don't share the same superstitions (religious beliefs, if you will) as their torturers?

You are also correct that one could conclude that religion could be "heroic opposition to oppression, it is about standing up for your beliefs even when the price is the highest one anyone ever has to pay, and the fact that some people cynically exploit religion to suit their own purposes doesn't change that" but does one actually need religion in order to do that? Could one do those things without having any superstitious or religious beliefs or mythologies to fall back on?

Bottom line: do morals come from superstitions? Or are morals the result of what actions are in the best interest of survival?

I will admit you're correct on this point:

I don't see a need to put a single face on a phenomenon that is different things to different people.

No, I probably shouldn't. I guess my opposition (and I think I'm pretty upfront in my bias) to what you title religion and I would call superstition comes from an inability to understand why some people need to have mythology as a controlling force in their lives. "Do good or you'll be punished" - why not do good for the sake of doing good?

Your analogy of business is moot, unless you are sincerely putting forth the proposition that one could hold beliefs in business practices in the same way one holds religious beliefs. I'm sure some do, but I've yet to meet anyone who actually prays to their employer or their means of making a living. Have you?

But yes, both can have noble and not so noble characteristics. I would ask you this, though: were you indoctrinated into your particular business as a child, under threat of damnation? Does your business tell you you have a soul and without it (the business), you're going to die? That all others who do not work for the business are damned? Would you willing die for your employer? Kill for your employer? Claim your employer is infallible and damn anyone else for not believing the same?

We could argue governments in the same positions, I suppose, and then I would think you'd be more correct in your corrolation, but I'm sure you can point out reasons why I'm wrong. Please do!

[Мастер]

Yes, you're right when both are religious, but what about when one is tortured because they don't share the same superstitions (religious beliefs, if you will) as their torturers?

I'd say that's a case of one person oppressing (either motivated by genuine religious conviction, or using religion as a cover for some other motives), and one person resisting oppression (also motivated by his/her religious beliefs - I'm not coming up with any likely ulterior motives for the persecuted).

You are also correct that one could conclude that religion could be "heroic opposition to oppression, it is about standing up for your beliefs even when the price is the highest one anyone ever has to pay, and the fact that some people cynically exploit religion to suit their own purposes doesn't change that" but does one actually need religion in order to do that? Could one do those things without having any superstitious or religious beliefs or mythologies to fall back on?

I think one certainly could. I don't know how many do.

Bottom line: do morals come from superstitions?

For some, sure.

Or are morals the result of what actions are in the best interest of survival?

I guess some will have moral codes based on this. In fact, I think a lot of what people tend to belivee is moral or immoral probably does have an element of survival in it.

The two are also not incompatible; I certainly know that it has been argued that many of the rules in Leviticus were simply good advice for people living in that part of the world at that time.

I think it comes down to what precisely one means by a "moral". It also seems to me a similar conversation took place somewhere here a while ago, although I'm not really sure where that one ended up.

I guess my opposition (and I think I'm pretty upfront in my bias) to what you title religion and I would call superstition comes from an inability to understand why some people need to have mythology as a controlling force in their lives. "Do good or you'll be punished" - why not do good for the sake of doing good?

Can't help you on that one. I have no idea why people do or think some of the things they do or think. Sometimes I don't know why I do or think what I do or think.

Your analogy of business is moot

It may be moot for the points you want to make; it's highly relevant for the one I want to make. Both are complex, multi-dimensional phenomena, and people are in them for different reasons, and exhibit different kinds of behaviours. We can say things like, "religion is about oppression", "religion is about control", "religion is about power", "religion is about the truth", "religion is about helping people", "religion is about making the world a better place", etc. If we pick one and ignore the others, we're missing something. Similarly, we could say, "business is about making money", "business is about power", "business is about making products that improve people's lives", "business is about making the world a better place", "business is about polluting the earth and then covering it up", and so on. All of these things happen in business. If we pick one, and ignore the others, have we captured the nature of business?

unless you are sincerely putting forth the proposition that one could hold beliefs in business practices in the same way one holds religious beliefs. I'm sure some do, but I've yet to meet anyone who actually prays to their employer or their means of making a living. Have you?

I most definitely know of people who pray when undertaking certain commercial activities. I do not.

I would ask you this, though: were you indoctrinated into your particular business as a child, under threat of damnation?

No, I wasn't. Nor was I indoctrinated into a particular religion under threat of damnation. As it happens, there were people who were born into certain businesses. I think it was the Roman emperor Constantine who made it compulsory for sons to follow in their fathers' trades. Not sure if failure to comply involved damnation.

Does your business tell you you have a soul and without it (the business), you're going to die?

Well, I might, if I fail to find another source of income.

That all others who do not work for the business are damned? Would you willing die for your employer? Kill for your employer? Claim your employer is infallible and damn anyone else for not believing the same?

All of these get at some differences between religion and business. The point I wish to make is that religion is a complicated, multi-dimensional thing, and one can't really say "it's about this" or "it's about that", without missing much of the essence of religions belief/behaviour. Same for business - you can say "it's about greed", or "it's about making products people want", or "it's about helping my family", or "it's about power". All of these capture some aspect of business behaviour; none of them capture all of it. None of these differences cause me to want to say that business defies simple characterisation, but religion doesn't.

We could argue governments in the same positions, I suppose, and then I would think you'd be more correct in your corrolation, but I'm sure you can point out reasons why I'm wrong. Please do!

I think government would be an excellent analogy! Is government something that protects the weak? Or is it something that throws ites enemies into jail or kills them? Is it something that helps those most in need of help, or is it something that helps those who have the best connections? Is it a source of employment? A source of power? Is it a way to serve the public? Or is it a way to serve onself?

Is government about one of these things, or is it about all of them?

[Blue Monster 65]

Heh heh heh ... right now I wish I had a job where I could sit in my office again and type away all day! Erm ... not suggesting you do, Mac - just saying it would be an easier way to continue this conversation. Anyway ...

I'd say that's a case of one person oppressing (either motivated by genuine religious conviction, or using religion as a cover for some other motives), and one person resisting oppression (also motivated by his/her religious beliefs - I'm not coming up with any likely ulterior motives for the persecuted).

I can agree with this to a point. Sometimes one thing supercedes another and at other times it will drive it.

(on doing good without religious beliefs) I think one certainly could. I don't know how many do.

Therein lies the big question for the philosophers. I am not one of those.

I guess some will have moral codes based on this. In fact, I think a lot of what people tend to belivee is moral or immoral probably does have an element of survival in it. The two are also not incompatible; I certainly know that it has been argued that many of the rules in Leviticus were simply good advice for people living in that part of the world at that time.

And rules would have to have been established long before the time of Leviticus - and long after - in order for people to have survived and thrived, no? Does that imply devine intervention or adaptation to surroundings?

I think it comes down to what precisely one means by a "moral". It also seems to me a similar conversation took place somewhere here a while ago, although I'm not really sure where that one ended up.

Yes, what we're discussing here has been dissected ad nauseum by others more learned and with more time than we have.

I have no idea why people do or think some of the things they do or think. Sometimes I don't know why I do or think what I do or think.

Ha! Yep - I know where you are with this! Sometimes people (including ourselves) do stupid - or smart - things for no real reason at all.

(on the business analogy) It may be moot for the points you want to make; it's highly relevant for the one I want to make. Both are complex, multi-dimensional phenomena, and people are in them for different reasons, and exhibit different kinds of behaviours. We can say things like, "religion is about oppression", "religion is about control", "religion is about power", "religion is about the truth", "religion is about helping people", "religion is about making the world a better place", etc. If we pick one and ignore the others, we're missing something. Similarly, we could say, "business is about making money", "business is about power", "business is about making products that improve people's lives", "business is about making the world a better place", "business is about polluting the earth and then covering it up", and so on. All of these things happen in business. If we pick one, and ignore the others, have we captured the nature of business?

I can give you that. I simplified and that was wrong to do. Again, given more time and desire, I'm sure I could do better in my argument. But probably not enough to convince you of such.

I most definitely know of people who pray when undertaking certain commercial activities. I do not.

Hahahahahahahaha! Well, thank FSM for that, no? :D

IThe point I wish to make is that religion is a complicated, multi-dimensional thing, and one can't really say "it's about this" or "it's about that", without missing much of the essence of religions belief/behaviour.

Point taken. Before stating my opinion, I should make/take the time to lay out my case as needed for complete and in-depth discussion.

I think government would be an excellent analogy! Is government something that protects the weak? Or is it something that throws ites enemies into jail or kills them? Is it something that helps those most in need of help, or is it something that helps those who have the best connections? Is it a source of employment? A source of power? Is it a way to serve the public? Or is it a way to serve onself?

Is government about one of these things, or is it about all of them?

Exactly. However, these are all questions we won't answer here, nor will they be answered "correctly" to anyone's satisfaction.

[Blue Monster 65]

Me and Mactep, while Lance looks on ...

[KLA2]

Wow! Great discussion. And BM 65 ^ ...

[KLA2]

And MM_Dandy, I did not miss your little bon mot

(but then that begs the question of how I'm supposed to know everything... I mean, I do a fair job of acting like I do and all...)

:wink:

[KLA2]

As for praying at work ... I do not believe in a diety. (Forgive me, FSM! )

Nevertheless, I will occasionally say/think ... PLEASE let this work, or the like. Who/what am I appealing to?

I never expect that any entity is listening, or will intervene ... but still. Is there anyone who does not do that?

Makes me wonder if belief in dieties is hardwired in the human brain. Scary.

[tubeswell]

What would you say to someone who looks at the exact same situation, and declares, religion is about heroic opposition to oppression, it is about standing up for your beliefs even when the price is the highest one anyone ever has to pay...

Okay Mactep - did you, or did you not, write the unabomber's manifesto?

http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt