Topics: Theology and Evolution, and Faith

Thursday, February 7, 2008



Faith: What is it?

I am not sure why people have such difficulty with faith. By faith I mean trust without certainty, loosely speaking. To believe in something people it seems nowadays more than ever need evidence to justify that belief (or should I say our palates have become more refined/advanced in what we accept as evidence). I think this is the result of the advancement made in science and more particular the application of technology within science. People would like to think that because of the aforementioned advancement(s) that we are at a stage were if something exists then we should be able to prove it; as such, people are less likely to believe that something exists even through they have no evidence for it and refuse to settle until they have a scientific explanation for an event that at first glance seems to be unexplainable. This is no truer than the existence of God.

People seem to be determined that they need evidence to show God’s existence, rather than simply believe that God exists. This possibly is because as we have become more scientific the world has seemed to become less mystical and as such less is contributed to the Devine realm (as some other explanation is gained). This leads to either people questioning God’s existence or feeling the need for evidence for God’s existence: if those things that once were contributed to the Devine are now contributed to the scientific then what says there is a God at all. To say, before science (in particular its advancement) the evidence of God’s existence was in those things that where contributed to the Devine realm (i.e., there must be God as God was how we explained things). However, as science has not really been able to prove (or really disprove—even after considering the discredit of religious artifacts: just because an artifact is discredited does not necessary mean that God does not exist) God existence people have turned to other means to try to prove God’s existence.

People then turned to theology for evidence (or proof) of God existence, but quickly realized that theology is based on faith. Many have tried to combine theology and philosophy. By doing this partnership I believe they hope to replace those aspects of theology that are faith based with philosophy (usually of which basic root is that before believing something we should be certain/justified of it and if the belief is true we can/must be justified/certain of it). However, as I have said in pervious posts how can we prove God’s existence and as such how can we be absolutely be certain/justified in believing God’s exists. The problem is it is highly doubtful that we will every be able to absolutely prove God’s existence; thus, ultimately it boils down to not whether people are certain/justified in believing that God’s exists, but instead if people have trust without certainty that God exists (i.e., faith).
Posted by issues-issues at 11:36 PM 2 comments
Labels: religion



Wrestling Theology together with Evolution

"...Believing in both evolution and the soul requires you to accept one of the following views. Either the single-cell organisms in the evolutionary primordial soup had souls (this looks unattractive for obvious reasons), or there was some point in evolutionary history where the beings that are now humans started having souls. But what point was this, and more to the point, how can we make sense of this idea without it just being an arbitrary line to draw?..." http://www.carlonline.blogspot.com/

My Position:

-----The Main Argument-----

First, Quaking (to tell when ‘humans’ gain a souls), Second, it is up to God to decide when a species is, will, or can be evolved enough to have a soul (or should I say pre-determines). Whom says God did not pre-determine (or decided) when we where evolved enough to have souls. I think the question(s) are then (1) at what stage of evolution did God gave (or pre-determined) us to have a soul, and (2) in what sense do we mean evolution? It is in God’s right to have decided when we got souls, but was there a specific reason that we gained souls at a specific time in our biological development? Was it when our the physiology of our brains were well developed enough to understand consequences of sin, etc.?

-----More Arguing of My Position-----

After this the question of evolution becomes is evolution itself pre-determined by God (it must be if we wish to accept that we are the only creatures (biological) that have souls and will have souls)? Otherwise, how can the principle of theology that states we are the only creatures (biological) with souls be justified? I think this brings up another issue: does God take a passive (pre-determinism) or an active role in our existence of evolution (i.e., stopping other creatures from evolving to gain souls)? If evolution is pre-determined by God then does this mean God does not take an active role is our lives (or does pre-determinism only applies to evolution)? If evolution was pre-determine by God (and our science is correct) then what prevents other creatures from evolving to the same point we gained souls?

If this occurs why would God not give them souls as well? If God gave them souls then the principle of us being the only ones having souls is incorrect. Did God pre-determine evolution? If our scientific understanding of evolution is correct an other creatures could evolve to have souls (or replace us as the dominating species, especially if we as a species die-off) does this mean God is repressing evolution of other creatures or does the principle of us only having souls only in affect until our species dies off (i.e., Judgment Day, etc.)? If is God repressing evolution of other creatures so he does not give them souls or did he pre-determine that their evolution will not developed that far? Will God simply not give them souls if they evolve to the point where we gained them?

I suppose what I getting at is if pre-determinism evolution is stretched farther enough it could imply that either God does not have an active role in our lives or other creatures might evolve to the point they too can be given souls. We can defend this off only so far off by means of presumptions (as I have done): God will simply not give them souls or God pre-determined that they will not developed so far. However, we really have no proof and we must base these presumptions on faith; that is, other creatures either will not evolve to the same point when we God souls, God will not give them souls if they do evolve to that point, or Judgment Day for our species will have already arrived (before the time they gain souls).

The Association between Government and Religion

I read a post on http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/ that was making the argument that Christianity and the American style of governance are “comparable” with one another, but unlike how some think they do not “inspire” each other. I found this argument very interesting as it reminded me that often governments and church’s develop agreements between each other to “justify and support” each other (as I said in the blog’s comment section). In return for the support of the church pronouncing the government as righteous (or following correct religious principles or practices that do not break church doctrine)--which gives support and stability to the government through the masses—the government in return gives legal sectioning to the church thus giving creditability to the religion (via people’s support for or views on the governments own creditability—granted this is the logic faults of guilt or innocence by association(s) as well as ad hoc reasoning) as well as often not taxing the church or taxing at a lower rate or by financially contributing to the church’s projects through various charitable and culture funding projects. It is especially helpful to the government when the churches’ of its country support their military conquests or at least ‘forgive’ or rule acceptable the actions of their soldiers as part of their duty to their country.

'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue #2)

I have been thinking of the 'fully god 'and 'fully man' issue a little more. It seems to me that if one considers the union as combining the two together in one flesh without either of the two losing any part of them then it could be said that there is not a contradiction.

If we begin by asking the question what is man (irrespective of sin) and what is God? Then we may see that there is no contradiction in saying that what is man and what is God being put in flesh together: to say the answers of the above questions? I think to most Christians this might find this acceptable as for them it has already occurred (i.e., Jesus). As I have said previously, part of theology rests on faith as trying to prove it (or disprove with actual evidence), especial physical, would be quite challenging to say the least. I thin some would go far to argue that we must also be careful of crossing the line between understanding the relationship between the 'fully man' and 'fully god' and being so conceited to think that our conception will determine the relationship between the two. In other words, we need to remember that Jesus was/is Jesus regardless of what we think the relationship is/was; the relationship does not change even if our conception of it does. Our job is to understand the relationship and not to determine it.

I think a remaining question would be is Jesus without sin because he is 'fully God' or is it because he rested temptation, but unlike any other human is not sinful? I think if the argument that the two exists in one flesh, but are separate then the answer to be consist would have to be the later (i.e., rested temptation despite being fully man).

This I think this might bring back the argument that if Jesus was 'fully God' then he had an advantage on the rest of us (i.e., knowing what was right and wrong, how to go about things in a rightful manner, etc.). With the response being that we too can have access to this knowledge through first Jesus (as it is through him that we find entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven and through him we are brought to God--the father).

'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue)

I suppose the best way in philosophy terms I can explain “conceptually separate” is, for example, to keep them epistemology and metaphysically separate in how we think of them.

I think it is important to realize there is a 'first principle' (as I said in my original posting) in Christianity and that is Jesus was God: this principle either rests of faith alone or very little evidence. The theologians would point to Jesus rational when people accused him of driving out demons by being a demon himself: it simply does not make sense that demons would expel one another because it would defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do: "[25]Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined...[26]If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself..." (Matthew 12). This passage could be interpreted to show either one or two things that either Jesus is the Son of God (and as such God himself) or at the very least he is on the side of divinity (i.e., doing god's work).

Once the 'first principle' is accepted then the argument might go: [second principle] we know Jesus was man as well as god (and not god alone) because he humbled himself in front of God and was obedient to his heavenly father (it makes no sense, some may argue, that a God would humble himself in front of himself and be obedient to himself). The response could be simply why not, if they are equal to each other? Who says a God could/should not humble himself in front of himself? Who are we to question a God's practice? In Christianity, there seems to be a debate that some like to perpetrate of whom is more important/powerful/etc. Jesus or God: it seems to me that most church's response have been the God is above Jesus (because of the humbling and obedience of Jesus to God (the father) in importantance (for a lack of better phrasing), but they are both equal in stature.

If we accept these two principles then this leads to the third principle, that Jesus is fully god and fully man (or at least some combination of both--I think it would be difficult to argue that Jesus was more man then God so if you are going to argue anything else then it must be that Jesus was more God than man, which according to some would not simply make sense. Remember there has been thousands of years in how religion has made us culturally think of Jesus--this is not to say the 'not make sense' group is correct or incorrect it just to make the point of cultural and religious bias and the changes of them over time.

Once you accept that Jesus is ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ then the next step is to pick an approach that best causes understanding for us. I think it is to keep them conceptually separate (as I explain the meaning of at the start of this posting) so we can work with them in our minds to understand them.

If you are looking for a coherent concept of ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ do you mean linear? It would be my opinion that theology cannot be completely linear as components of it rest on faith alone (for example, Jesus was a God--try actually proving it with evidence, especially physical?) and faith is rarely linear or even logical. I am now wondering if this means if faith is incoherent.