Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

When you consider the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity, the chances are you do so from one of three perspectives. Perhaps you’re educated in the sciences and are convinced that current scientific theories and data explain our origins and enable us to exercise some control over future events; yet you also have a knowledge of the Bible and its seeming incompatibility with science. Alternatively, you might believe that God created the world and that the scriptures contain all of the answers about our origins and future; at the same time, you understand the basics of the scientific theories and can see their apparent incongruity with some of the teachings of your religion. Then again, you may be familiar with the fundamentals of biblical religions and of science, not feel committed to one or the other perspective, yet be curious about whether their apparently disparate explanations and timelines for our origins and outlook on the future are reconcilable.

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

[LuckyR]

When you consider the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity, the chances are you do so from one of three perspectives. Perhaps you’re educated in the sciences and are convinced that current scientific theories and data explain our origins and enable us to exercise some control over future events; yet you also have a knowledge of the Bible and its seeming incompatibility with science. Alternatively, you might believe that God created the world and that the scriptures contain all of the answers about our origins and future; at the same time, you understand the basics of the scientific theories and can see their apparent incongruity with some of the teachings of your religion. Then again, you may be familiar with the fundamentals of biblical religions and of science, not feel committed to one or the other perspective, yet be curious about whether their apparently disparate explanations and timelines for our origins and outlook on the future are reconcilable.

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

The only groups? You do know there are 4300 religions in the world, right?

[Sushan]

When you consider the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity, the chances are you do so from one of three perspectives. Perhaps you’re educated in the sciences and are convinced that current scientific theories and data explain our origins and enable us to exercise some control over future events; yet you also have a knowledge of the Bible and its seeming incompatibility with science. Alternatively, you might believe that God created the world and that the scriptures contain all of the answers about our origins and future; at the same time, you understand the basics of the scientific theories and can see their apparent incongruity with some of the teachings of your religion. Then again, you may be familiar with the fundamentals of biblical religions and of science, not feel committed to one or the other perspective, yet be curious about whether their apparently disparate explanations and timelines for our origins and outlook on the future are reconcilable.

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

The only groups? You do know there are 4300 religions in the world, right?

Yes. But this is not a question related to the religion you belongs to and how many religions are there. The author has divided people into three groups depending on their beliefs regarding the origin of the universe and life, in quite a broad manner. I believe that generally we cn divide people like this. But are there any more broad catogories that we can consider?

[Pattern-chaser]

When you consider the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity, the chances are you do so from one of three perspectives. Perhaps you’re educated in the sciences and are convinced that current scientific theories and data explain our origins and enable us to exercise some control over future events; yet you also have a knowledge of the Bible and its seeming incompatibility with science. Alternatively, you might believe that God created the world and that the scriptures contain all of the answers about our origins and future; at the same time, you understand the basics of the scientific theories and can see their apparent incongruity with some of the teachings of your religion. Then again, you may be familiar with the fundamentals of biblical religions and of science, not feel committed to one or the other perspective, yet be curious about whether their apparently disparate explanations and timelines for our origins and outlook on the future are reconcilable.

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

My view is simple. For those who understand science, and religion, realise that the two are not in conflict. They have different purposes. Science offers facts, and thereby understanding. Religion offers aims, aspiration and guidance, and thereby understanding. For me, at least, there is no conflict.

An exception: I cannot understand, or support, scriptural literalists, such as might be found among US extreme Christians. Their insistence on their sacred texts being the actual words of God leads to all manner of inescapable confusions, IMO.

[Steve3007]

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion?

Science or the Bible? No. Those aren't the only possible groups. The prequel to Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is called The Silmarillion. It's essentially a creation myth. There are probably some people who believe it. There are various other creation myths too. For example, the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call "The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief".

So there are various views. It's a rich tapestry. People can be very imaginative.

[Steve3007]

I believe that generally we cn divide people like this. But are there any more broad catogories that we can consider?

The author appears to use a particular creation myth from a particular culture at a particular point in human history as one of the categories. So that category could certainly be broadened to refer more generally to people who like creation myths. But then again, he may be using the terms "bible" and "biblical" to refer to creational mythologies in general and not just the particular one that we normally associate with the word "Bible".

[Sushan]

When you consider the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity, the chances are you do so from one of three perspectives. Perhaps you’re educated in the sciences and are convinced that current scientific theories and data explain our origins and enable us to exercise some control over future events; yet you also have a knowledge of the Bible and its seeming incompatibility with science. Alternatively, you might believe that God created the world and that the scriptures contain all of the answers about our origins and future; at the same time, you understand the basics of the scientific theories and can see their apparent incongruity with some of the teachings of your religion. Then again, you may be familiar with the fundamentals of biblical religions and of science, not feel committed to one or the other perspective, yet be curious about whether their apparently disparate explanations and timelines for our origins and outlook on the future are reconcilable.

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

My view is simple. For those who understand science, and religion, realise that the two are not in conflict. They have different purposes. Science offers facts, and thereby understanding. Religion offers aims, aspiration and guidance, and thereby understanding. For me, at least, there is no conflict.

An exception: I cannot understand, or support, scriptural literalists, such as might be found among US extreme Christians. Their insistence on their sacred texts being the actual words of God leads to all manner of inescapable confusions, IMO.

The two has different methods of delivering answers to the questions of humankind. What science could not do has been done by religion at some points and vice versa. So, yes, there is no need to have a conflict in between them.

But the problem comes when there are extremists who still believe that the God created this universe and life, and also the earth is flat. They study various ancient scriptures, interpret them in various ways and try to make them scientifically legit. They actually disregard what science has told against their religion and only accept the scientific facts which go hand in hand with their beliefs. They are the ones who have made this confusion and unnecessary argument

Yet, when we come to discuss this matter, we can see that atleast above-mentioned categories exist

[BobS]

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

Without quibbling about how to set up the appropriate categories, the first thing that strikes me is that you (and/or the author) seem to think that anyone who considers the bible to be, essentially, a fairy tale, does so only after rigorously considering whether and to what extent it conflicts with Science (with a capital "S"). For my part, I have a hard time believing that, left to my own devices, I ever could have dreamed up this god business in the first place. I don't see where I need science to reject such an outlandish idea.

But then to quibble about the categories: I suggest that your survey would cover more territory if it broke down the categories this way:

1. Believers,
2. Non-believers, and
3. Undecideds

[Sushan]

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion?

Science or the Bible? No. Those aren't the only possible groups. The prequel to Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is called The Silmarillion. It's essentially a creation myth. There are probably some people who believe it. There are various other creation myths too. For example, the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call "The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief".

So there are various views. It's a rich tapestry. People can be very imaginative.

Various cultures and various religions have various views and beliefs regarding the creation of the universe. Definitely the ancient biblical writings are inspired by such beliefs as well, and with the regional differences, people might have had slight differences in the same story. Maybe that is the reason for the numerous creation stories.

But in common, what we see is that some people have given the credit of creation to some supreme being. According to the bible it is the almighty God. When superstition was the only thing there to discuss such matters, this kind of various groups of people with various mixed beliefs were not there. Bit when science has come into the picture, the situation has become a bit confusing as people tried to explain these things scientifically, and that is the reason for the existence of such groups.

[Sushan]

I believe that generally we cn divide people like this. But are there any more broad catogories that we can consider?

The author appears to use a particular creation myth from a particular culture at a particular point in human history as one of the categories. So that category could certainly be broadened to refer more generally to people who like creation myths. But then again, he may be using the terms "bible" and "biblical" to refer to creational mythologies in general and not just the particular one that we normally associate with the word "Bible".

That is correct. Seemingly this author has done some strenuous research on the subject using many religious scriptures, which are related to the Bible. Maybe that is why he is calling them as biblical scriptures.

You are correct. We can go out from this scope which is limited by the biblical creation-myth and consider all those who believe in creationism, with slightly different stories, but with the one final idea of a supreme being. So we can generally take these groups as believers of creationism, believers of science, and the remaining who either have not decided or do not care

[Sushan]

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

Without quibbling about how to set up the appropriate categories, the first thing that strikes me is that you (and/or the author) seem to think that anyone who considers the bible to be, essentially, a fairy tale, does so only after rigorously considering whether and to what extent it conflicts with Science (with a capital "S"). For my part, I have a hard time believing that, left to my own devices, I ever could have dreamed up this god business in the first place. I don't see where I need science to reject such an outlandish idea.

But then to quibble about the categories: I suggest that your survey would cover more territory if it broke down the categories this way:

1. Believers,
2. Non-believers, and
3. Undecideds

Actually there is no need of scientific evidence to disprove the biblical fairy tales, if you do not believe them. But the problem occurs when the believers try to give their beliefs some scientific validity, like this author. He has gone to the extents of research to prove that the biblical stories have exactly happened and they also can be fit into scientific time lines as well.

There are many who think like that, other than this author, and that is the base of dividing people like this. We can actually divide them as you suggested, but then many who have some sort of religious background as well as a scientific knowledge will claim themselves as the undecided ones, not because they truly do not have a decision, but with their religious upbringing, they are reluctant to reject their religious beliefs right away

[BobS]

We can actually divide them as you suggested, but then many who have some sort of religious background as well as a scientific knowledge will claim themselves as the undecided ones, not because they truly do not have a decision, but with their religious upbringing, they are reluctant to reject their religious beliefs right away

Another approach might be to proceed along the lines that Maimonides suggested: give a literal meaning to sacred texts as the default position, but where there are compelling reasons to do so, apply a metaphorical meaning instead. And leave it at that.

(Admittedly, I haven't read Maimonides in the original, and the secondary sources that I've seen indicate that he's not always clear, but that's beside the point, since I'm offering my understanding of what he said, accurate or not, as an alternative to your point.)

Whether the bible is literally true or not, why don't religious people simply treat its moral thrust as the important point and leave it at that? Why care whether some guy named Lot bonked his daughters three thousand years ago? Why care whether another guy, this one named Job, actually existed and whether, as the bible says, God totally screwed him over, apparently because of Satan's jibes (God not being mature enough to handle being taunted). Why not just go with the "moral" point on the last one: if God decides to screw you over, you'll take it and like it, mister!

When I see these kinds of disputes, I'm reminded of the Thirty Years War, where it's estimated that a third to a half of Germany's population perished because of disputes over complete nonsense, such as the question of whether, when you "receive the Eucharist," you're actually chowing down on Jesus instead of merely doing something symbolic. Consider all those deaths and wonder, what is it about the religious mind that it wasn't it sufficient for everyone to accept that the Supremo Being wanted people to receive the Eucharist, that it therefore was a good thing for people to do it, and not worry about what the bread molecules were doing?

[Sushan]

We can actually divide them as you suggested, but then many who have some sort of religious background as well as a scientific knowledge will claim themselves as the undecided ones, not because they truly do not have a decision, but with their religious upbringing, they are reluctant to reject their religious beliefs right away

Another approach might be to proceed along the lines that Maimonides suggested: give a literal meaning to sacred texts as the default position, but where there are compelling reasons to do so, apply a metaphorical meaning instead. And leave it at that.

(Admittedly, I haven't read Maimonides in the original, and the secondary sources that I've seen indicate that he's not always clear, but that's beside the point, since I'm offering my understanding of what he said, accurate or not, as an alternative to your point.)

Whether the bible is literally true or not, why don't religious people simply treat its moral thrust as the important point and leave it at that? Why care whether some guy named Lot bonked his daughters three thousand years ago? Why care whether another guy, this one named Job, actually existed and whether, as the bible says, God totally screwed him over, apparently because of Satan's jibes (God not being mature enough to handle being taunted). Why not just go with the "moral" point on the last one: if God decides to screw you over, you'll take it and like it, mister!

When I see these kinds of disputes, I'm reminded of the Thirty Years War, where it's estimated that a third to a half of Germany's population perished because of disputes over complete nonsense, such as the question of whether, when you "receive the Eucharist," you're actually chowing down on Jesus instead of merely doing something symbolic. Consider all those deaths and wonder, what is it about the religious mind that it wasn't it sufficient for everyone to accept that the Supremo Being wanted people to receive the Eucharist, that it therefore was a good thing for people to do it, and not worry about what the bread molecules were doing?

Very much insightful and thank you for the wise comment. This sort of disputes are actually unnecessary. When we look at the history, there have been numerous wars and massacres simply because of either religious dominations or religious disputes. The one you mentioned is a good example.

There is something to be taken from what Maimonides said, to take the literal value wherever possible, and when it is difficult, take a metaphorical meaning. Yet, this metaphorical meanings can be interpreted in various ways and can lead to further disputes.

The best thing to do is let the religions be at their spiritual positions and keep them seperated from science. Those who try to mix the two should be taken care of, to prevent unnecessary trouble to the common people who do not care whether the religious matters are scientifically acceptable or not.

[LuckyR]

When you consider the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity, the chances are you do so from one of three perspectives. Perhaps you’re educated in the sciences and are convinced that current scientific theories and data explain our origins and enable us to exercise some control over future events; yet you also have a knowledge of the Bible and its seeming incompatibility with science. Alternatively, you might believe that God created the world and that the scriptures contain all of the answers about our origins and future; at the same time, you understand the basics of the scientific theories and can see their apparent incongruity with some of the teachings of your religion. Then again, you may be familiar with the fundamentals of biblical religions and of science, not feel committed to one or the other perspective, yet be curious about whether their apparently disparate explanations and timelines for our origins and outlook on the future are reconcilable.

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

The only groups? You do know there are 4300 religions in the world, right?

Yes. But this is not a question related to the religion you belongs to and how many religions are there. The author has divided people into three groups depending on their beliefs regarding the origin of the universe and life, in quite a broad manner. I believe that generally we cn divide people like this. But are there any more broad catogories that we can consider?

Well, you were the one who specified the bible. If you meant "any religious creation story", you should have said so.

[Sushan]

As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.

1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.

2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.

3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.

Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?

The only groups? You do know there are 4300 religions in the world, right?

Yes. But this is not a question related to the religion you belongs to and how many religions are there. The author has divided people into three groups depending on their beliefs regarding the origin of the universe and life, in quite a broad manner. I believe that generally we cn divide people like this. But are there any more broad catogories that we can consider?

Well, you were the one who specified the bible. If you meant "any religious creation story", you should have said so.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. But here I had to focus on the bible since this book is about the bible and Christianity. But that does not mean that we have to limit our discussion to a narrow scope. Creationism is believed in many religions in many forms, so almost all of has heard of some sort of creationism in our childhoods, whether we believe it or not as adults now. Depending on that, we can divide people into wide categories, which will represent my initial three groups in a more or less similar way