"The danger of worshipping Darwin"

Galvasean

The comparitive magnificence of two conflicting ideas holds no bearing on their truth/worth.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the point.

How can you be impressed by something God did when God can do anything for an infinitely small amount of effort?

What exactly do you think we should be impressed by? Are you saying God could have messed the whole thing up but isn't it great of him that he didn't?

In fact we can't even be impressed that God created us at all because by the definition of God him creating us takes exactly the same amount of effort has him not creating us.

Anything God does is equally impressive or unimpressive depending on how you look at it. Him not creating us would be as impressive as him creating us.

I'm falling to see what in all of that we are supposed to say "wow, that was impressive" over?

Personally I think the whole idea of a god robs the universe of all wonder and awe. Everything is instantly reduced down to being fundamentally unimpressive.

That is not of course a reason to believe a god doesn't exist, any more than finding it hard to believe we evolved naturally is a reason to believe we didn't.

But the argument that life is more impressive because God made us, or the argument that if natural evolution is true we are "just" the end result of a chemical reaction that has been going on for 3 billion yeears, is one I don't understand at all.

Nothing about your idea of God impresses you, so that's where it ends for you. I can't give any reasons to you why God is impressive, because you don't like the idea of a God.
It doesn't matter how much effort it took him. We have no way of knowing what sort of "effort" or any other factor was involved in His actions. Just because He is all-powerful doesn't mean His every action is worthless. Even if it took effort, what level of effort would satisfy you?
If Superman were real, and reached out and grabbed a bullet that was about to kill someone, wouldn't you think it was a great act of heroism? But it didn't take him any effort, at least not any of significance. It's the fact that he chose to save the person.

It's the fact that God chose to create us as free moral agents, and have a personal relationship with us, who are of different natures, and allow us to live eternally, even though we are destined to die in our current state, that is magnificent.

I can say that God's plan makes sense to me, and it's meaningful that He has chosen to create us.
What impresses me is your ability to think more highly of the creation than the creator.

CDfm

darjeeling wrote: »

I would say I find the evolutionary version more persuasive. I'm more neutral on whether I'd prefer to be the result of evolution than divine creation - perhaps the preference has a touch of the elusive 'evolutionism' about it? I'll grant, though, that the creator gods currently on offer do all seem to show the traces of having been forged within the cramped confines of the human imagination, and are the less impressive for it.

Even though Im a christian the idea of being created seems a bit more credible than pond slime:D

You are a little bit deist.

Myksyk

Galvasean wrote: »

The comparitive magnificence of two conflicting ideas holds no bearing on their truth/worth.

This is very true.

However, in opining that I found the evolutionary journey awe-inspiring etc I was not suggesting that it was any more true for being so. It stands firmly on its evidential base. I was merely offering a corrective to Chozometroid's fairly typical creationist fare whereby that extraordinary journey is summed up with the worn out 'so are you saying we evolved from slime?'. The purpose of this tired and tiresome tactic is to attempt to render the idea of evolution ridiculous, unbelievable, underwhelming and undesirable (despite his 'slime is cool' protestations to the contrary).

Evolution is not true because it happens to speak of a mind-bogglingly wonderful natural journey but neither is it untrue because some people find this journey somehow underwhelming.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Nothing about your idea of God impresses you, so that's where it ends for you. I can't give any reasons to you why God is impressive, because you don't like the idea of a God.

It is your idea of God. Don't blame me that you guys made him infinitely powerful and therefore rendered anything he does effortless, and thus hard to get impressed by.

chozometroid wrote: »

Just because He is all-powerful doesn't mean His every action is worthless.

Worth has little to do with impressiveness. A kiss from my mother as I'm leaving to go traveling is not impressive (unless she travelled 1,000 miles to give it to me, which she didn't, she walking in from the kitchen), but that doesn't effect its worth to me.

chozometroid wrote: »

If Superman were real, and reached out and grabbed a bullet that was about to kill someone, wouldn't you think it was a great act of heroism? But it didn't take him any effort, at least not any of significance. It's the fact that he chose to save the person.

How is that impressive? Bullets can't hurt him?

Imagine if Superman hadn't saved the person from the bulliet? Given that tiny effort involved to do so (remember God is infinitely less effort than that still) if he hadn't have done it we would consider him some what of a prick.

chozometroid wrote: »

It's the fact that God chose to create us as free moral agents, and have a personal relationship with us, who are of different natures, and allow us to live eternally, even though we are destined to die in our current state, that is magnificent.

As opposed to what?

Again like the Superman example, what do you think God could have done that wouldn't have been impressive under your use of that term?

chozometroid wrote: »

I can say that God's plan makes sense to me, and it's meaningful that He has chosen to create us.

Ok ... again, like the worth discussion, that doesn't really have much to do with anything.

You seem to be suggesting that what God did has to be impressive because if it wasn't impressive then it has no worth and you have no meaning?

That is a whole different discussion.

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

It's magnificent because God is the original Supreme Being, and we were important enough for Him to create. That means He has intentions with regards to us.

God must also have created saggy bottoms, senile dementia, rickets and the Ebola flesh-eating bacterium. If this is what his intentions are -- and since he's said to be omniscient, I presume this is what you believe -- then frankly, I think that most of us can get by quite well without any of this attention.

chozometroid wrote: »

All of what you said is exactly why it is harder to believe in than God.

I certainly agree that imagining that "god did it" is an easier solution. Heavens, I can't really think of a simpler one!

But accuracy is not a popularity contest and the evolution of species does not simply become false simply because you find it difficult to believe, any more than your telly stops working because you don't know what's behind the screen.

darjeeling

CDfm wrote: »

Even though Im a christian the idea of being created seems a bit more credible than pond slime:D

If you can say that after weighing the biological evidence, then the beleaguered creationists in our favourite Christianity thread will welcome your support.

CDfm wrote: »

You are a little bit deist.

You think? Well, deists seem to be everywhere these days. Here's a transcript of a recent TV interview between Church of England leader Rowan Williams and your friend Richard Dawkins:

C4, The Genius of Darwin wrote:

Rowan Williams: Darwinism as a theory of how evolution works, a highly plausible, highly credible theory about biological history - I don't have a problem with that.

Richard Dawkins: Do you see god as having any role in the evolutionary process?

Williams: For me, God is the power or the intelligence that shapes the whole of that process, as Creator. God's act is the beginning of all creation.

Dawkins: By setting up the laws of physics in the first place in which context evolution takes place?

Williams: Things unfold within that.

Dawkins: What about intervening during the course of evolution?

Williams: I find that that rather suggests that God couldn't have made a very good job of making the laws of physics in the first place if He constantly needs to be adjusting the system, adjusting the works.

(Video here)