/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15075120]

How do religious people deal with the problem of evolutionary theory? Is there any way to reject it without appealing to revelation?

[Anonymous No.15075141]

>>15075120
hasn’t been proven. You need faith to accept it as reality.

[Anonymous No.15075150]

I'm not religious but it would not be hard to say that evolution was started by a higher power. It feels weird to admit that animals are constantly adapting and evolving just because they are.

[Anonymous No.15075176]

>>15075120
I mean I don't know how every single religion deals with it, the whole Catholic pretty much just accepts it.

[Anonymous No.15075195]

>>15075176
I doubt that. Wouldn't that mean catholics are forced to reject everything in the bible regarding genesis.

[Anonymous No.15075204]

They comprehend not, the Unheavenly,
How Souls go forth from Me; nor how they come
Back unto Me: nor is there Truth in these,
Nor purity, nor rule of Life. "This world
Hath not a Law, nor Order, nor a Lord,"
So say they: "nor hath risen up by Cause
Following on Cause, in perfect purposing,
But is none other than a House of Lust."

Are you going to deny cause and effect OP?

But more generally, religions are about the truths that lie beyond the edge of reason. If you haven't realized the truth does not end where reason does (or even realized that reason is not absolute, but bounded), they won't make sense to you.

Continue with your empirical, reductive mindset, but apply it to everything. Don't be satisfied with stopping at the biological abstraction layer, break everything down to basic physics. See for yourself how much sense reality makes then.

[Anonymous No.15075212]

>>15075120
>theory
where's the problem

[Anonymous No.15075213]

>>15075120
I fail to see how the two are mutually exclusive? Evolution works into the Genesis story nicely.

[Anonymous No.15075219]

>>15075120
>it's just a theory bro

[Anonymous No.15075220]

>>15075150
It gets even weirder when you realize it's 2020 and we still haven't figured out abiogenesis.

[Anonymous No.15075228]

>>15075150
Natural selection through survival of the fittest and heredity. Read a biology textbook

[Anonymous No.15075233]

>>15075195
you’re not supposed to take genesis literarily

[Anonymous No.15075239]

>>15075220
Not an issue. This isn't Star Trek there are no life sign detectors because being alive is not well defined concept and it's definitely not a metaphysical category. Life is just a complicated chemical process and where we draw to the line between living and dead is pretty arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.15075243]

>>15075233
>>15075213

Pretty sure this is blasphemy bro.

[Anonymous No.15075245]

>>15075213
>>15075233
then what is the purpose of Genesis? How did death enter the world? Evolution would mean that God created death before humans were around, that they would die regardless. But the Bible makes it clear that death is the result of sin.

[Anonymous No.15075248]

>>15075233
You're not supposed to take any of the Bible literally it's a story w

[Anonymous No.15075311]

>>15075120
read anything by Buddha

[Anonymous No.15075314]

>>15075233
>you’re not supposed to take genesis literarily
The Bible clearly presents Adam and Eve as literal people who existed in a literal Garden of Eden. They literally rebelled against God, they literally believed Satan’s lie, and they were literally cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24). They had literal children, all of whom inherited the sin nature, and that nature was passed down to succeeding generations to this very day. Fortunately, God promised a literal Savior to redeem us from that sin nature (Genesis 3:15). That Savior is Jesus Christ, called the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), who died on a literal cross and literally rose again. Those who believe in Christ will have literal salvation and spend eternity in a literal heaven.

Christians who deny the story of Adam and Eve essentially deny their own faith. Rejecting the literal interpretation of the Bible’s historical narratives is a slippery slope. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then were Cain and Abel not real? Did Seth exist, and did he father a godly line that led all the way to Abraham and eventually to Jesus Himself? Where in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23–38) do the names stop referring to literal people and start referring to mythical characters? To dismiss Adam and Eve as non-literal is to deny the accuracy of Luke’s gospel, cast aspersions on Moses’ record, and remove the foundation of the rest of the Bible.

God’s Word claims to be true (Psalm 119:160). Jesus Christ declared God’s Word to be truth (John 17:17). All of God’s Word is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17). These declarations include the biblical account of Adam and Eve.

[Anonymous No.15075329]

>>15075243
>>15075245
I almost went to the Olympics back in 2012 for my prowess in mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.15075332]

>>15075213
>Evolution works into the Genesis story nicely.
It doesn't, what the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.15075346]

>>15075243
Not for catholics it isn't
>>15075195
This was more or less settled a long time ago by Thomas Aquinas and other christians of similar thought.
The very (VERY) simplified explanation reached is that reason is given by God and since God doesn't interfere in every moment of every aspect of the universe (miracles would be him intervening as opposed to say something falling fue to gravity which doesnt require God's intervention but is the natural result of universal laws made by God), then it follows that excluding miracles and direct intervention by God the workings of the universe, his creation, can be underestood using reason, so in cases where scripture and scientific facts disagree then it must be that scripture is being misinterpreted by human beings.

This is similar but different to a position held by other contemporaries of Aquinas that argued that religion was always right in terms of moral and the soul but science in the physical realm and religious folk should live in a state of dual but at the same time kinda contradictory intellectual position. This view atleast in the catholic world lost more and more relevancy.

So things like thd big bang theory and the evolutionary theory are not "accepted" by catholics in terms of being considered their official belief but they are considered likely and there's a whole body of theological theory justifying why it is atleast probable and how it would fit in and reshape interpretations of certain passages.

[Anonymous No.15075388]

>>15075141
Mind-body problem disproves evolution. And theres no real evidence for evolution

[Anonymous No.15075396]

>>15075120
I'm Roman Catholic and went to a catholic school my whole youth, and evolution is pretty much accepted and there's no reason to choose ignorance; only literal niggers take everything in the bible literally. Do I think the parable of the sower was a real occurrence? Of course not. Do I think it's a interesting story Jesus told to explain faith? Yes. What did and didn't happen in the bible is up the individual. If some Christians want to believe in creationism, they're free to but it does mean they're choosing to ignore or deny certain scientific consensuses that many Christians accept. Religion and belief isn't about having concrete proof and the most logical answers, it's about belief, and for some, community. Science could never disprove religion because religion exist on the basis of the non-evident. Perhaps more devout Catholics will disagree but this is how I feel about it and belief, Christianity in particular, allows for that type of freedom.

[Anonymous No.15075409]

>>15075388
>Mind-body dualism
Kek young earth creationism makes more sense than this crap

[Anonymous No.15075432]

>>15075396
Jesus’ resurrection was a parable, too, right?

> If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

[Anonymous No.15075433]

>>15075233
Words mean what they mean in context. This applies to verses as well. Genesis 1, 2, and 3 are not meant to be scientific explanations. They are two accounts of the one creative movement of God. In section (Gen. 1), seven days are described; and then in another, basically, one day is described. This is consistent with the ancient Jewish system of writing where a single event is used to describe the whole. Remember, they didn't have typewriters, word processors, and a stack of paper next to them that enabled them to write large amounts of prose. When they wrote, they had to write efficiently because the supplies were not as prevalent as we are so accustomed to here and now.

Therefore, it would make sense that the second "account" of the creation is not intended to be as literal as the seven-day description; rather, it is a short representation of the preceding information. Please note that Gen. 2:4 says, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” We see in this verse a description of the summation of the previous information found in Chapter 1. So, we can be confident to know that the writer was fully aware of the previous information and chose to speak of it in a more condensed form in the above verse.

But this does not mean that “the Bible is not literally true.” It is literally true where it is intended to be literally true, figurative where it is intended to be figurative, poetic where is meant to be poetic, etc. Therefore, we must examine the wide diversity of biblical writing using logic, contextual analysis, etc. Do I believe that God created the earth in the order that is described in Chapter 1 of Genesis? Yes, I do.

[Anonymous No.15075466]

>>15075396
>What did and didn't happen in the bible is up the individual.
>I'm Roman Catholic
Are you sure about that, buddy?

[Anonymous No.15075467]

>>15075388
Two extremely stupid statements one after another, theists on rapid fire autism

[Anonymous No.15075474]

>>15075220
>current year

[Anonymous No.15075475]

>>15075346
>in cases where scripture and scientific facts disagree then it must be that scripture is being misinterpreted by human beings
>scientific """"""""""facts""""""""""

[Anonymous No.15075483]

I love evolutionary theory. It gives you a sure way of outing pseuds and false christians.

[Anonymous No.15075492]

>>15075239
"Complicated" is quite the understatement when the situation is "we can't figure it out at all".

> being alive is not well defined concept and it's definitely not a metaphysical category.

Guess murder should be decriminalized then, if life and death are arbitrary, meaningless concepts.

[Anonymous No.15075503]

>>15075239
>Life is just a complicated chemical process

[Anonymous No.15075510]

>>15075432
That's up to the individual to decide whether it was a real event or not but the Resurrection -and much of the new testament- is a little different because that's what the whole christian faith is built around, so I'd personally argue that some stories have to treated with more reverence that others.
>>15075466
To a certain extent. For example: I don't take genesis literally but I believe in many of Jesus' teachings and exploits, such as his outrage in market and the feeding of 5000. However, sometimes I like to think of the feeding of 5000 less as literal miracle but a parable of how faith can fill you up on so little actual food, or something along those lines. But please, tell me how I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.15075511]

>>15075467
>>15075483
What abiogenesis is solved, and when the DNA/RNA/protein chicken-and-egg problem is solved, and when it is shown how every type of trait evolved, then evolution would be proven. Honestly it’s quite embarrassing that humans believe in a random process creating life when they can’t even do it themselves with purpose and all chemicals at their disposal. Evolution is far from fact and that’s why a theist has no good reason believing in it. If we’re wrong, then we’re wrong. What, then? Nothing. I don’t need to believe in evolution to go to heaven, nor even be happy in this life.

[Anonymous No.15075516]

>>15075396
>if you dont accept scientific consensus that destroys your entire religion you are a nigger

[Anonymous No.15075534]

>>15075510
we’re talking about the foundation of Christianity here. Please tell us how Genesis should be interpreted. What’s the point of a genealogy including Adam if he’s just a representation of some Neanderthal millions of years ago? What about the men who lived for hundreds of years? Was that fake too? Then why is it included? What’s the purpose of Noah’s ark? Did that happen, either? This is a dark path. I choose to believe all of the Bible, because I know that God cannot be angry for that.

[Anonymous No.15075552]

>>15075314
The only system that holds up to the amount of scrutiny and reduction you want to subject Christianity to is physics, and maybe not even that one since it lacks the TOE. Reason breaks everything down to atoms, leaving behind nothing humans care about. Do not begrudge others their dreams, for you yourself live in one.

[Anonymous No.15075554]

>>15075239
I disagree. Somethings are most definitely dead and others, most definitely alive. While what being alive truly is still unbeknownst to us, where we draw the line between what is being alive and what is being dead is one of the least arbitrary things about living we can currently do. Most creatures whose brain has ceased activity, are most certainly dead. A tree that is no longer sustaining itself and functioning is dead. (You)? Brain dead

[Anonymous No.15075558]

>>15075492
You think our laws are based on well defined non-arbitrary definitions?

[Anonymous No.15075568]

>>15075510
>much of the new testament
>much of
>up to the individual
Just be honest and call yourself protestant already if you believe this type of garbage.

[Anonymous No.15075570]

>>15075554
Most life doesn't even have a brain. Sustaining itself and functioning is that vague imprecise "I know it when I see it definition" I was talking about

[Anonymous No.15075582]

>>15075516
>>15075534
Like I said, not everything has an answer and the ones I have are only really relevant to myself. But, in my opinion, taking EVERYTHING in the bible literally crosses a line from faith to blind faith. And if that's how you want to do it, that's up to you but it's not my way.

[Anonymous No.15075600]

>>15075582
Let God be true and every man a liar.
Romans 3:4

[Anonymous No.15075602]

>>15075570
Well different levels of life have different metrics you retard. Being alive means to function, being dead means to cease functioning. Single celled organisms die when they stop working. Bugs die with they stop working. We die when we stop working. Also, since when is this discussion about such low forms of life? Let's keep this on things that can at least hold a consciousness. Even then, you still don't have an argument

[Anonymous No.15075613]

>>15075600
Is this supposed to be profound? How do we know about God if not by word of mouth from another human being. God didn't reveal himself to anyone but the disciples, prophets, etc.

[Anonymous No.15075619]

>>15075602
Stop working is about as arbitrary and vague a definition as you can get.

>The legal time of death is "that time when a physician(s) has determined that the brain and the brain stem have irreversibly lost all neurological function."

This is just the physician making a judgment call. See all the court cases about people fighting not to have their family members taken off life support

[Anonymous No.15075625]

>>15075613
>Is this supposed to be profound?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15075644]

>>15075613
>How do we know about God if not by word of mouth from another human being
THE WORD OF GOD, HAVE YOU HEARD OF IT?

[Anonymous No.15075648]

>>15075644
Does God talk to you? Seek help if you hear voices

[Anonymous No.15075650]

>>15075120
creatio continua: creation is 'in statu viae'

[Anonymous No.15075653]

>>15075613
Christ reveals himself in the Holy Eucharist. Or was that also merely allegorical?

[Anonymous No.15075660]

>>15075120
>without appealing to revelation
Why would you not want to appeal to the greatest and final source of truth?

[Anonymous No.15075661]

>>15075653
he's probably a protestant

[Anonymous No.15075663]

>>15075648
it’s called the Bible. Does your priest let you read it?

[Anonymous No.15075666]

>>15075663
And the Bible was written by a person aka another human being

[Anonymous No.15075692]

>>15075619
I don't think you know what arbitrary means. Everything that we don't have complete understanding of has concepts and metrics that will have poorly defined factors, if you're reductive enough. Consciousnesses is something we have the least understanding of, but it's widely accepted that death occurs when the brain has ceased all function. No neurons lighting up, no synapses shooting off. I say stop working for the sake of simplicity but the statement stand true. Working and not working, in a lot of cases, are binary states. Something is either working or not working (Working poorly is still working). The grey area of whether someone is alive or dead is absurdly thin: a person who has suffered extreme brain damage that they have no consciousness and cannot survive without machines may be considered brain dead but also alive, but really that goes down to opinion but scientifically, that person is alive if their brain is still having neurons firing off. Google arbitrary

[Anonymous No.15075694]

>>15075475
Its a simplification of Aquinas' arguments, his words were more in line of having to trust senses and reason from observing the world but since we know that senses although useful at perceiving the unuverse are not flawless I use the word facts.
Do you have an actual objection or do you exclusively react with memes to certain buzzwords like some sort of bot?

[Anonymous No.15075705]

>>15075694
>Aquinas
He was the proto-bugman so you can safely disregard all of his rationalistic argumentation.

[Anonymous No.15075715]

>>15075692
I know what arbitrary means you're just trying to defend your common sense idea of what life means which a lot of metaphysics is based off. Life is definitely not binary just recent medical history shows that. I notice you were careful not to define life from a heart beat which was the customary sign up till several decades ago. Cursory google search gives me this read it
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101-there-are-over-100-definitions-for-life-and-all-are-wronghttp://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101-there-are-over-100-definitions-for-life-and-all-are-wrong

[Anonymous No.15075750]

>>15075692
>Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment.

<Although biology is the study of life, even biologists don't agree on what 'life' actually is. While scientists have proposed hundreds of ways to define it, none have been widely accepted. And for the general public, a dictionary won't help because definitions will use terms like organisms or animals and plants -- synonyms or examples of life -- which sends you round in circles.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15075843]

>>15075120
> evolutionary theory
It isn’t a theory anymore. It is an established fact.

[Anonymous No.15075871]

>>15075715
>>15075750
>we were uninformed about science and medicine in the past
Wow wee. Yeah we also bored holes in heads to relieve headaches and cure epilepsy. That's just how knowledge works. In the future I'm sure we'll make great progress on things that stump us now. But we're not talking about what defines life, since I already agreed that was something too difficult to define, I'm disagreeing with your idea that the line between alive and dead is arbitrary, not the line between the alive and not alive. A rock is not dead, it is simply not alive. Measuring whether something is dead or not is hardly arbitrary when one can easily compare it to its functions or lack their of. An insect or simple life form isn't dead because it has no brain, because that is not what it needs to function or live. Humans without a brain cannot live or function and are therefore dead.

[Anonymous No.15075879]

>>15075871
So you think dead and not alive are two different things?

[Anonymous No.15075902]

>>15075871
And just to point out this whole discussion started from me saying the definition of life vs non-life is vague and arbitrary which you just agreed with

[Anonymous No.15075936]

>>15075879
You would call a tree dead but not a house dead because a house was never alive to begin with and therefore could not have died. And don't be annoying and revert back to "how do you decide what's alive to begin with?" because then we'll be here all day. Being dead and not being alive are different titles and while a dead thing is not alive(obviously) a not alive thing is not necessarily a dead thing.
>>15075902
>where we draw to the line between living and dead is pretty arbitrary
Well I was and am disagreeing with this statement, if you made a prior statement about non-alive things, I never claimed to disagree, my first response to you was with the Bateman gif. Dead doesn't mean nonlife. You'll either have to concede on a miscommunication or try to prove otherwise

[Anonymous No.15075950]

>>15075239
Holy shit. How soulless can you get

[Anonymous No.15075965]

>>15075936
But a dead thing is necessarily not alive correct? And your position is that the difference between alive and not alive things is vague but if that not alive thing was alive as some point the difference is immediately clear? You understand how stupid that is right. I eat nothing but dead shit it replaces all the matter in my body over time am I now a zombie?

[Anonymous No.15076018]

>>15075950
>soulless

[Anonymous No.15076043]

Denial

[Anonymous No.15076057]

>>15075120
>How do religious people deal with the problem of evolutionary theory?
What problem? Do you seriously think that believing monkeys are our uncles is any more logical than that we were intelligently designed to be stewards of the Earth?

[Anonymous No.15076069]

>>15075120
Genesis is not meant to be taken the same way as you take typical mundane stories of sense data (i.e. I saw a dog today, and by that I mean I literally processed in my mind the image of a dog). Regardless, Genesis is a true story. It is a story about metaphysical principles and the creation of the universe before even matter was emanated. You can think of Adam and Eve as real people, and they are real insofar as their stories play out in the lives of all of us humans, but you can also understand them as eternal metaphysical principles. Its simply an esoteric explanation of the universe.

The thing is, people don't understand why it is illustrated with humans and a garden and things like that. The reason to tell it in a mythical story is that the esoteric truths play out on all levels, be they cosmic or human, and so using the story of a garden and people isn't wrong. You have to use some kind of myth to illustrate the metaphysical truths behind it, because when laid bare they're simply ineffable concepts that precede all language and conscious thinking. Using a story in which the concepts are incarnated into relatable characters is a great way to express these truths.

At the end of the day, these myths were simply not constructed for the modern rationalist mind to engage with, so they seem pointless to us.

[Anonymous No.15076081]

>>15076069
I only care if the Bible is literally true and that when I die I might wake up in hell. Any metaphysical or metaphorical meaning is just mental masturbation as far as me and most of humanity is concerned. And if Genesis isn't literally true what about the rest of it?

[Anonymous No.15076106]

>>15076069
>myths
>constructed
Constructed by whom? Isn't Genesis supposed to be the word of God? Also, was Adam an actual human person I could point to and touch with my hands if I was there?

[Anonymous No.15076114]

>>15076069
To expand on this: evolution isn't in contradiction with the story.
Humanity was created through the story of genesis, literally everything material is at every second. The building blocks of the physical world work in accordance with mathematical (metaphysical) truths, and so everything chemical, and biological, and cultural etc etc must also work by those same rules, simply exponentiated in complexity due to the increase in working parts. Really, there is no difference between metaphysics and physics. There is no where to draw the line. Evolution is just as metaphysical as Genesis, its just rendered in a way that is easier for modern man to accept rather than Jewish desert wanderers, like telling a story in a different language.

[Anonymous No.15076129]

>>15076114
Physics can be experimentally tested. Can you experimentally test metaphysics? If you could people would have alot more respect for it because it would be clearer it wasn't just pulled out of someone's ass

[Anonymous No.15076181]

>>15076129
>Physics can be experimentally tested.
How do you know the experiments are correct? How do you know they're externally valid? Physics stands on a certain metaphysical foundation, and no amount of religious scientism will change that.

[Anonymous No.15076196]

>>15076181
You didn't answer the question so I will answer it for you. No, metaphysics can not be experimentally tested and anyone can make up any shit and call it metaphysics. My metaphysics is that christcucks are automatically wrong.

[Anonymous No.15076212]

>>15075558
No. My overarching point is nothing humans care about is well-defined, or non-arbitrary. Hence why it's silly to attack religions on those grounds.

[Anonymous No.15076214]

>>15076081
>I only care if the Bible is literally true and that when I die I might wake up in hell
Metaphysics is literally true. In fact, metaphysical truths are more real than the earthly life you think you experience. If you experience hell, it will not be like a cave with fire and screaming people. It would probably (What would I know, I haven't been to hell) be more intense and palpable than anything the puny meat-computer in your head could come up with.

Metaphysical stories are not empty metaphors. It is encased in a myth for our tiny brains to comprehend, but it is still true because within the fabric of that myth the ineffable truths play out like actors on a stage.

>>15076106
It is the word of God if it is true. Not true in the sense of "there is a keyboard below my fingers", but more true as in "1 + 1 = 2". A universal eternal truth which will last long after keyboards.

I don't believe in particulars anymore. I think all particulars are just bundles of universals. Words are not disconnected from the cosmos. The archetypes of the mind have their roots in a meat-brain, but this blob of flesh is comprised of subatomic mathematical actors. Objects only appear to be solid, physical, distinct things to the ignorant mind, but even modern science will disprove that view.

Its the word of God (and take this with a grain of salt, I don't know the mind of God) because it aligns with the archetype of God and it is true by "intellectual intuition" as that infamous monkey-man would say. The word of God is the purest, most timeless, spaceless, and perfected truth that the mind can achieve, even if it is wrapped in the fabric of a myth.

[Anonymous No.15076220]

>>15076212
And my point was that the difference between alive and dead is not well defined so there is no great mystery to be solved in abiogenesis.

[Anonymous No.15076241]

>>15076129
>Can you experimentally test metaphysics?
Metaphysical knowledge is gained through introspection and is intellectually intuitive, supra-rational. Physical claims are rational, and therefor are based on knowledge of particulars as opposed to universals and must be verified with sensory experience. Metaphysical knowledge deals with universals and so is verified by simple introspection and contemplation.

[Anonymous No.15076243]

>>15075871
>Yeah we also bored holes in heads to relieve headaches and cure epilepsy
it works, trepanning is a lost art of the ancients that allows one to reach higher states of conciousness

[Anonymous No.15076252]

>>15076220
Yeah there is, the origin of life is still obscure due to that failure. It doesn't matter how arbitrary the definition of life is, there is still an entire field of science studying it. I guess you can just dismiss biology out of hand, but that's a hardcore reductionist approach not many take.

[Anonymous No.15076266]

>>15076214
People can make up whatever metaphysics they want. If it doesn't have a literal correspondence I don't care. Saying Genesis didn't literally happen casts doubt on the literalness of the rest of the Bible. It wouldn't matter at all to me if I was in metaphysical hell but I wasn't literally burning or literally conscious after death to feel it. This is just pathetic apologetics from Bible thumpers pressed into a corner

[Anonymous No.15076279]

>>15076241
And again you can't prove that knowledge to anyone else deductively or even show that it is experimentally true. There is no difference between it and fantasy to another person

[Anonymous No.15076300]

>>15076279
>experimentally true
What a meme. "I did it one time so it must happen all the time"

[Anonymous No.15076308]

>>15076241
This is where metaphysics lead to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXnef2Ltklg
That old argument people always make fun of where atheists compare God to Santa Claus. This poor f religious fuck has went so far down the symbolism brain drain that he's saying Santa Claus is real.

[Anonymous No.15076323]

>>15076300
Yes that is the problem of induction that all science suffers from. Metaphysics doesn't even abide by that insufficient standard. I can make up anything and claim I gained it through introspection and there is nothing anyone can say otherwise since it doesn't accord with deductive or inductive reasoning. That is indistinguishable from imagination

[Anonymous No.15076334]

>>15076266
Anyone can make up any history they want. Doesn't it being a historical moment rather than something true in any time or place degrade it?
It does have a literal correspondence. It is more real than anything in your entire life. What is the past? Its just a memory to you now. It might as well have been a dream. The "real world" with "real history" is just a stage for cosmic actors to play on. Stop being fooled by whats on the screen.

If Adam were a "real person" he would be closer to a figment of your imagination than what Adam really does represent on a cosmic scale.

>>15076279
Esoteric knowledge cannot be made up by anyone. Deductive reasoning is the product of a monkey-brain, but esoteric truths are not found within the content of this brain, but rather its form. When you examine the form of the mind and take it apart, rather than get bogged down in its contents and sensations, you begin to see things that necessarily precede the mind.

I've got to go do stuff now, so I'll just say read Guenon. If you don't like that, then oh well.

[Anonymous No.15076352]

>>15076308
He's real in Jungian terms, and Jungian terms are real insofar as the mind is made of the same fabric as the rest of the cosmos. Symbols are not unreal. Humans are not created a separate reality by merely thinking, we would have to be God to do that. Spirits are incarnated into myths and the mind by their dis-incarnate metaphysical actors. They are ontology personified.

[Anonymous No.15076357]

>>15076334
You can make up anything and call it history but unless you have evidence no one will believe you. I just introspected my belly button and came up with the esoteric truth that you're full of metaphysical shit. How would you call that wrong so that someone else would believe you?

[Anonymous No.15076367]

>>15076352
Lol so I guess we're in agreement then God is real the same way Santa Claus is. God is Santa Claus for stupid adults

[Anonymous No.15076372]

>>15075511
God bless!

[Anonymous No.15076379]

“Religious people” is such a general term. It varies from faith to faith and denomination. Most Catholics accept a form of theological evolutionism since the two really aren’t mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church has no official position. It doesn’t matter frankly, since the vast majority of people are only half educated and have a very shallow understanding and interpretation of the theory of evolution anyway. The two are not incompatible and the theory of evolution is still just a theory.

[Anonymous No.15076382]

>>15076352
>Humans are not created a separate reality by merely thinking, we would have to be God to do that

So anything I come up with is real? Man just give it up this is obvious gibberish

[Anonymous No.15076423]

>>15075705
I'm in this thread to answer OP's question as to how religious folk reconcile or deal with evolution not to have some retarded argument on whether anything said by any philosopher is accurate or not.
I am sure you will find someone else you can waste your time arguing with tho.

[Anonymous No.15076453]

>>15075511
I think this is /thread

[Anonymous No.15076476]

>>15076453
Combination of god of the gaps and Pascal's wager. Same old christcuck BS that they refuse to apply to themselves. How did God create the universe? Does not knowing how mean that him creating it is not proven? And what if God is just testing you and want's you to believe in evolution? Then you would go to hell if you don't

[Anonymous No.15076513]

>>15076476
>Same old christcuck BS that they refuse to apply to themselves.
it’s already implied why, I kinda pointed it out already. I have faith in my religion, but unlike atheists and scientists, I don’t have faith in evolution. And why should I? It has no effect on my life
> Does not knowing how mean that him creating it is not proven?
yes, that’s why we have faith, which normally should not apply to science. So I’m content with having faith in God, but I won’t believe in evolution until it’s either proven or shown to benefit me by believing it.
> And what if God is just testing you and want's you to believe in evolution?
Because there’s no indication whatsoever that this is the case, in the Bible, or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15076565]

>>15076323
>Metaphysics doesn't even abide by that insufficient standard.
If the standard isn't sufficient, then it doesn't matter whether it is abided by. Stop your science worship and realize that metaphysics is a necessary component of physics.

[Anonymous No.15076597]

>>15076513
>Because there’s no indication whatsoever that this is the case, in the Bible, or otherwise.

There is no indication that God exists either and yet his possible existence is used as a part of Pascal's wager that - wait for it - is used to argue for belief in God. The form of the argument is make something up, list detrimental consequences of what you made up, use avoidance of those consequences to argue for belief in what you made up.

And as far as faith goes I fully understand that and wish other Bible thumpers would be as honest. There is no reason to believe in God and christcucks don't need a reason.

[Anonymous No.15076603]

>>15076565
Why is it necessary? By what criteria, you've already denied deductive or inductive reasoning

[Anonymous No.15076636]

>>15076597
>>15076597
The prophecies, miracles, martyrs, perpetuity, wisdom, and history of Christianity altogether indicate a possible existence of God. There is both an epistemological and practical basis for belief, and that’s not even including personal revelation and experience. You can’t tell someone there’s no reason to believe something as he believes it. Obviously he sees something in it. There’s a reason there are a billion Christians and not a billion spaghetti worshippers.
> There is no reason to believe in God
I still can’t believe you actually typed this out and thought that it didn’t sound retarded

[Anonymous No.15076660]

>>15076636
This is just semantics. When people say there is no reason to believe in something they mean that there is no true reason. If a child see's a dragon on GoT and says dragons exist they have a reason for saying that but it's not real. So rephrase it Bible thumpers have no rational reason to believe in God.

All this prophecies, miracles, martyrs, perpetuity, wisdom is either subjective(angels on the head of a pin is far from wisdom) or just fake(miracles). The history is real but how you can go from that to Jesus who the fuck knows

[Anonymous No.15076679]

>>15076636
And if these things count for evidence every other religion has them just as well. Why doesn't Pascal the Hindu's Wager convince you?

[Anonymous No.15076692]

>>15075176
>the whole Catholic pretty much just accepts it.
Yea but now the Catholic Church and Catholics are pretty much a shell of their former selves. Probably an inevitable result of all the discoveries made of the Bible and Science starting in the 1800s.

[Anonymous No.15076697]

>>15075233
You are but it doesn't mean the Bible isn't flawed in certain small ways. It was written a long time ago and has been translated multiple times after all, what do you expect?

[Anonymous No.15076726]

>>15076660
there’s no true reason to believe in evolution. All the so-called evidence for it is either subjective or fake
>>15076679
since you bring up Pascal, why don’t you read the part in Pensées where he explains exactly why Christianity is the only valid religion?

[Anonymous No.15076729]

>>15075511
based

[Anonymous No.15076737]

>>15076726
>why don’t you read the part in Pensées where he explains exactly why Christianity is the only valid religion?
Which part? Quote it please

[Anonymous No.15076746]

>>15076726
Why would I read him when his wager is obvious brainlet shit? There is no subjective evidence for evolution because wisdom and martyrs aren't scientifically acceptable. And are you really saying miracles are as scientifically verified as evolution is?

[Anonymous No.15076771]

>>15076737
It’s 100+ pages. Get reading, lazy
>>15076746
>Why would I read him when his wager is obvious brainlet shit?
ah, yes, because you don’t need to read a man’s work to draw any conclusions about it. How exactly is the wager so bad? I’m willing to bet money that your first objection has already been handled by Pascal himself.
> And are you really saying miracles are as scientifically verified as evolution is?
It’s a cumulative case, just as for evolution. All the things I listed together do not PROVE that God exists, but they do offer more than 0 evidence, certainly more than the spaghetti monster, do you agree? Or do you think that billions of people believe something with absolutely 0 evidence? Then why aren’t there random religions formed everyday with millions of followers?

[Anonymous No.15076772]

>>15075239
Go outside and find a rock. Is it alive? Yes or no answer please.

[Anonymous No.15076781]

>>15075552
That did not answer even a single question that guy asked.

[Anonymous No.15076782]

Faith and the Future, Cardinal Ratzinger (1971): "The difficulty begins with the very first page of the Bible. The concept presented there of how the world came to be, is in direct contradiction of all that we know today about the origins of the universe....And the problem continues, almost page by page....in the very next chapter new problems emerge with the story of the Fall. How can one bring this into harmony with the knowledge that - on the evidence of natural science - man starts not from above, but from below, does not fall, but slowly rises, even now having only just accomplished the metamorphosis from animal to human being? And what of paradise? Long before man existed, pain and death were in the world. Thistles and thorns grew long before any man had set eyes on them. And another thing: the first man was scarcely self-conscious, knew only privation and the wearisome struggle to survive. He was far from possessing the full endowment of reason, which the old doctrine of paradise attributes to him. But once the picture of paradise and the Fall has been broken in pieces, the notion of original sin goes with it, to be followed logically, it would seem, by the notion of redemption as well.”

[Anonymous No.15076787]

>>15075346
All of Aquinas is post-hoc rationalization which doesn't prove or explain anything.

[Anonymous No.15076796]

>>15075396
>What did and didn't happen in the bible is up the individual
Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.15076805]

>>15076771
>It’s 100+ pages. Get reading, lazy
So in other words, you don’t have anything. Too bad, Pascalboy

[Anonymous No.15076808]

>>15076771
I already explained how the wager was bad see>>15076597. And I extremely disagree that they offer more than zero RATIONAL evidence. This isn't a popularity contest billions of people can be stupid and believe shit irrationally. Their irrational reason is just cultural.

>>15076772
Rock is clearly in the dead category. Is a virus alive or dead yes or no answer please? And after that answer whether RNA molecules are. The thing about vague and arbitrary definitions is that they can easily be applied to most of the common cases but break down at the edges or anything outside common experience. The common sense idea of life has no biological reality and metaphysics is just common sense elevated to dogma

[Anonymous No.15076816]

>>15076808
self-replicating RNA molecules*

[Anonymous No.15076818]

>>15076808
youre arguing that the wager is bad based on the section of Pensées that you haven’t read. Fool

[Anonymous No.15076827]

>>15076818
What does it matter if I haven't read the rest of his stuff? Did I misrepresent the wager? If I didn't it's dumb and you're dumb for thinking it shows anything.

[Anonymous No.15076836]

>>15075653
>Bread LITERALLY becomes Jesus
>Later I LITERALLY shit Jesus into the toilet and flush him away

[Anonymous No.15076843]

>>15076818
Then quote the section that proves your point.

Oh wait, you won’t and never will. This is why people laugh at you, Pascalboy. That and the fact that you spend your whole life on an anonymous board defending shitty Christian philosophy

[Anonymous No.15076857]

>>15076827
>What does it matter if I haven't read the rest of his stuff
the absolute state of /lit/. Read Pensées cover to cover or don’t comment on the wager. You can keep arguing with me for whatever purpose or you can actually try to correct your misunderstanding. The choice is up to you. Stay ignorant if you want

[Anonymous No.15076868]

>>15076214
>If you experience hell, it will not be like a cave with fire and screaming people. It would probably (What would I know, I haven't been to hell) be more intense and palpable than anything the puny meat-computer in your head could come up with.
Will such an experience happen to me if I don't believe that roughly 2000 years ago a literal jewish nerd picked fights with other jewish nerds, got nailed to a cross, and then miraculously came back to life an appeared physically to hundreds of people? If you answer anything besides a plain "yes" or "no" your mother will die in her sleep tonight

[Anonymous No.15076885]

>>15076857
There I just read it. Still wrong and stupid. And since you didn't see fit to show where I don't have to either

[Anonymous No.15076895]

>>15076214
>Metaphysics is literally true. In fact, metaphysical truths are more real than the earthly life you think you experience
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15076904]

>>15076857
Again, Pascalboy, this doesn’t work. You can’t just claim that you’re right on something because a book says so, then not quote anything from this book that proves your point. This is an argument from authority and this has been explained to you multiple times by now. The only reason you won’t listen to this is because you’re an autistic fucktard who needs to find a hobby besides pascalposting on /lit/ to people who look right through your bullshit

[Anonymous No.15076980]

>>15076782
May as well burn his Bible. Pretty sick that these Catholics are so eager to shit all over their holy text because of what some speccy labcoats who hate their guts think.

[Anonymous No.15078129]

>>15076904
at least admit that any argument against a book you haven’t read is moot
>>15076885
show where? what are you talking about? The table of contents gives you everything you need

[Anonymous No.15078175]

good grief
this fucking thread

[Anonymous No.15078681]

>>15075511
>random process creating life when they cant even do it themselves with purpose and all chemicals at their disposal
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15078927]

>>15078681
he meant "help help i don't understand evolution and have no concept of time"

[Anonymous No.15079363]

>>15078681
abiogenesis

[Anonymous No.15079424]

>>15075120
Why reject something that explains the world around us so well and enables us to make such accurate predictions? Like, if you are choosing a place to live, you can tell in advance what level of crime a it will have just by looking at its demography...

[Anonymous No.15079462]

>>15079424
>>15075511

[Anonymous No.15079493]

>>15075396

you were right and nonheretical until you made the personal interpretation comment