This is the first time I hear about this issue

I will go through it in order to know more

Many thanks for sharing this important question

I am an atheist. But if I believed God I would never make move to accept evolutionism. And it is easier to accept God made everything than to believe life has evolved.

This site equates God with descriptions of 'God' found in ancient, pre-scientific literature, which IMMO demolishes in one fell swoop any claims it may have to understanding or wisdom.

As long as we continue in to equate God with arbitrary, say-so descriptions found in ancient Middle-Eastern literature, we're not getting out of the woods.

Let's not either arbitrarily believe in claims of special 'revelation': such claims have been variously made by Sergey Torop, Claude Vorilhon, Marshall Summers, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Huynh Phu So, Wovoka, Guido von List, Akhenaten, Tamara Siuda, Franklin Albert Jones, Nakayama Miki, Zelio Fernandino de Moraes, Hong Xiuquan who founded the murderous Taiping movement, Joseph Smith, and many others, thereby belying in principle the objective validity of such claims.

Let me suggest an alternative definition of God, compatible with modern science:

In mathematics, infinity can grow, even infinitely so (contrarily to what instinct would have us believe, and to what probably most people would think off the cuff.)

Any possible definition of God leads to the compelling demonstration that Godhood is immanent - i.e., present everywhere in the Universe (or multiverse.)

Therefore, the manifest universe can be seen as the way God grows Itself, i.e. Its own infinity, thereby upholding Its own divinity by not becoming a set, fixed, 'museum' infinity.

God is not 'personal' the way It is described in ancient, unschooled literature - some angry old man with odd hang-ups. 'God' is the live , omnipresent wave function of the Multiverse, for ever growing beyond Its current infiniteness.

Thank you for the question and the authors of this ... Greetings

There are excellent lessons in nature that clearly shows the presence and existence of God and His dealings with man. In fact, true science appreciates God as the creator . Many scientific discoveries confirm His dealings with man, the truthfulness of His words in the Bible etc.

There is no need for 'harmony' between science and religion. Science is possible with and without religious faith, religious faith is possible with or without science.

There is a modern tendency, as is expressed on a number of threads on RG to wish to conflate scientific knowledge with religious credo. This often comes across as doubt. Religious faith does not require proof yet many on RG want to find tangible 'evidence' that events, such as those described in the bible are supported. Why?

If one believes in god or gods is it not the testimony of the prophets and gods themselves that determine truth?

If one does not believe in god or gods then their influence on science is non-existent and irrelevant.

The true ethic of science is doxasticism which is the antithesis of faith. Science is about doubt, religion is about certainty.

Some of the greatest scientists in history have been deeply devout believers, many others have been atheists. Some are inspired by religious faith others by natural wonder.

One other huge misunderstanding about atheism is that it is a denial of the spiritual. An atheist simply does not believe in gods, that does not mean they believe that the amazing universe we live in is simply a mixture of soulless matter and energy.

I know many atheists who are just as inspired as the most zealous devotee of religion. The universe and the world we live on are as inspiring as it gets.

I am as a Muslim believe in god found that there is no conflict between Islam and science , Islam ask people to study even in the furthest place in the world and ask Muslims to think about nature and think how the creation is done. People claim that Darwin said that the origin of human is a monkey! from here religious people every where were against the theory. Evolution not about human but living creatures; evolution can happen within living creatures as a Muslim I accept the evolution theory.

Best regards

Aly R Abdel-Moemin

Islamic scholars have contributed enormously to science and philosophy and show clearly that religion and science are compatible.

I think people ought to know that Darwin remained a Christian all his life and that his theory of evolution challenged only the Genesis creation story, not religion itself.

One of the greatest scientists of all time was also devoutly religious. Isaac Newton did not refute Christianity.

Science has not challenged religion only the infallibility of priests. Copernicus and Gallileo were not atheists. It was the corrupt church they challenged, not belief itself.

Well , Well !!!!!

I am not for reasoning and too much of faith but I am about making things work , so sorry do not want to dispute if god is right or we are !!!

Science is right , one explains it or not . Why would earth support life forms and not Mars or Saturn's moon ...

We as Muslims are our reference to the One God and the Prophet Muhammad, Concerning the harmony between science and religion, I believe that many of the facts that modern science has reached us were told by God about 1438 years ago

I advise you to read the Holy Quran and think about its meaning

Greetings

Now I know what BioLogos means, which is not the same as Biologists.

BioLogos. It allows an approach between Science and Religion, but I do not know how far it can go, or how and by what means it will do so.

 BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation.

https://biologos.org/

Ahora ya se lo que significa BioLogos, que no es lo mismo que Biólogos.

BioLogos. Permite un acercamiento entre la Ciencia y la Religión, pero no sé hasta donde más pueda llegar, o como y por que medios lo hará.

BioLogos invita a la iglesia y al mundo a ver la armonía entre la ciencia y la fe bíblica a medida que presentamos una comprensión evolutiva de la creación de Dios.

https://biologos.org/

whatever the meaning of BioLogos people thoughts, it may be differ from man to man as its natural.But, still I will say there is no doubt about the existence of God. Yes, I think only God has created the universe and he is mainlining the cycle and definitely he is! as the result , The sun is rising, the earth is moving, the crops are growing in the field, there is birth and death, there blooming of the beautiful flowers. So, everything is in harmony, this is not only the saying of the Bible, but also the Holy, Qur'aan !

Dear friends, Thank you all.

I watched a few videos on the biologos web site. I do not know who are behind the website nor what is their intended audience. From what I saw, I see them doing a good job in showing the book of Nature (evolution of the cosmos and life), the book of Man (history of human and scriptures), and the book of God can all be interpreted in compatible ways and in fact are best interpreted in that way. The level is for about a 10 years old. But I guess it is the level necessary to address some US creationists.

BioLogos rests on the following premises:[7]

1. The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago.

2. The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.

3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan.

4. Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.

5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.

6. Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God.

I disagree with 1. The Universe is by definition ‘’ALL THAT EXIST’’ and since nothing can be created out of nothing then the UNiverese has always existed. The biggest scientific discovery of the last few century is the idea that the Universe is an evolution. In other words, all that exist in the Univese sometime back in the past did not exist. Which mean that nothing originally existed except the creating. The Bing Bang theory is wrong given that it assume a fixed law of the Physics to be initially existing which does not make any sense. All that exist, including all order did not initially exist except one aspect that cannot be removed otherwise nothing would have exist: the creating, in other word God.

I disagree with 2.. The fine tuning idea stem from a fix conception of the laws of Nature, a fasle separation of the creating from the created. Here is why the fine tuning is wrong. It is an artefact of a fine tuning modeing methodology. The equation of the Bing Bang are fine tuned in order to predict the evolution of the cosmos. Then we are amazed that that the intial conditions are fine tuned. Of course they are fine tuned, it is a pre-requisite of the modeling method which assume these laws initially existed. It is a form of creationist called Platonism. Totally bogus.

I disagree with 3. The idea of God’s plan is ridiculous. But as I said, the creating, life is at the beginning. All is alive and the product of life. All is that is alive is conscious, this is the creating in us. Biological life is a form of life, particle are previous forms and we can expect planetary form of life up to the universe which is God form of life.

I disagree with 4. The creating is always there and biological evolution has accelerated because evolution always take the path of maximum life, maximum evolution. So not only the creating was at the beginning of biological life but it is more and more in it and became particularly present in human form of life which accelerate life by reaching bio-cultural form of life based on the return of the mammalian imagination into itself.

In five, he seem to contradict what he said in 4.

I can elaborate on 6. Humanity has been created by religion, it is essentially a religious form of life and it is form of life closer to God given its special relationship with the mammalian imagination.

Collins do not fully embraces evolution and the creating which is God. He retain the fixity of the law of Nature as a premice. Peirce immediatly after Darwin understood that evolution was about everything and that all the laws had evolved also. Science can only be about fixed laws and so science can't be about the creating. Whatever in evolution is fixed will be discovered by science but It can't be all of it otherwise everything would had had to have been initially created. this is creationism. God, the creating constantly created and faster and faster. He is not sitting on its bum after an initial burst of creativity. Our consciousness is the spark of God all living creature share and piety is about how I can expand life of other throw my life, it is a call for the creativity which my form of life has arisen from.

Logic dictates that if the universe could have sprung from nothing then any number of universes can exist simultaneously both outside and within the one we perceive. The Big Bang cannot have happened logically as a non-contingent event unless multiple or even unlimited no-contingent events can take place.

Cosmic inflation is also a non-contingent event as things stand. No verifiable explanation has been postulated for an event that defies what we perceive to be the laws of physics. Logic therefore dictates that there are very, very many reasonable alternative theories to the expanding universe and even permits the existence of deities.

Deities are also of course non-contingent beings so like the number of non-contingent events there must be unlimited numbers of them. If non-contingent events and non-contingent beings can exist then contingency is not required for existence. It cannot therefore be logically concluded that non-contingent events or non-contingent beings could be limited to one.

Mr Spock was right when he said, “there was no deity involved it was my cross circuiting to B that brought them back”

Carbon dating is after all limited to lifetime of Carbon and who can say when it was composed !!!!!

Logic further dictates that none of the deities can be omniscient or omnipotent. Omnipotence has been demonstrated to be logically inconsistent. An omnipotent deity would be able to construct a universe that she could not destroy. If she could not destroy it she would not be omnipotent. If she could not construct an indestructible universe she would not be omnipotent.

Deities therefore like cuttlefish, chimps and humans have a finite capacity for understanding and capability which rules them out as creators of the universe.

I guess that puts us back to square one!

Dear Barry,

Logic don't dictates anything with it comes to deities. You have to look at the deities stuff with something else in your skull than the logical part. You have to use your peotic imagination for reading deities stories. Even the ancient egyptian priests knew that thousand and thousand years ago. You have to do a bit of catch up on your poetic side.

Happy new year.

Louis

To me logic is poetry!

Aparna

The cabon formed as a result of the destruction of the earliest population III stars. These stars were made solely of helium and hydrogen and when their core temperatures reached 100 million degrees the helium fused into carbon.

As Mr Spock would remind us, "there was no deity involved"

The population III stars were present in the universe from around 13.5 billion years ago so that is around about the time that carbon was composed.

Now that is what I call poetry in motion!

Barry,

A bit more and I would think that your are autistic on your way to become a Turing Machine. I did'nt not know about your passion for logic. I did notice though that you tended to conflate a poetic message, an artistic message with a message addressed to reason and logic and so to apply logic to the former and be in the impression that it is the same language.

Louis

I am aware of no sundering of logic from poetry. The Greeks found logic and rhetoric compatible so no 'conflation' is necessary.

Barry,

“there is an old quarrel between philosophy and poetry” (Rep. 607b5–6), in support of which Plato quotes bits of several obscure but furious polemics—presumably directed by poets against philosophers—such as the accusation that the opponent is a “yelping bitch shrieking at her master” and “great in the empty eloquence of fools”.[3] Indeed, much of the final book of the Republic is an attack on poetry, and there is no question but that a quarrel between philosophy and poetry is a continuing theme throughout Plato's corpus.

Article Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry

Louis

Once again you dodge the point. Logic is only one facet of philosophy and philosophy is often expressed in poetry.

Barry I am trying to point to something that is still invisible to you. Yes logic is only one aspect of philosophy and rational language and yes philosophy is often expressed in poetry. This you see but it is not what I am pointing out. Why is it that Plato felt like that towards what it called the poetic arts? I feel you are like him regarding this issue. He was a positivist, someone having difficulty seeing what I am pointing out.

I am flattered by being compared to Plato I must say. Howver it is not that I do not see what you are saying, it is that I do not agree with you!

No argument can be settled by using hugely generic words like philosophy and poetry. They mean diferent things in different contexts so cannot be either reconciled nor be unreconcilable.

Dear Barry,

I was hoping to draw your attention to what I would call the positivist imbalance that is often created by development of our rational side and which Plato is an early example when we wished to banish the poets from his ideal city. Vico have discussed it and saw the new Cartesianism entering education as being in needed to be counterbalanced by development of the poetic and language side, to delay mathematical and rational teaching so this imbalance would not be created by the development of our rational side. Descartes was such highly imbalanced case. Comenius had also seen this danger in his own way and although appreciative of the new rational side was trying to show that it is not in nature antithetical with religious tradition, that the book of Nature and that the sacred books were not talking to the same side and thus not at odd with each other and he even talk to Descartes about it but Descartes did not see that.

Dear Kirk MacGregor

Do you know what the Buddhist objection to God (per se) is? At the core, it is related to the philosophy of "no self", not seeing things personally (especially, causation) AND not having one's "self" intrude ANYWHERE where that is unnecessary (and that "anywhere" is very close to EVERY circumstance/situation). [ Seeing things "as they really are", including understanding causation -- which is basically just true sequences -- is seen as enough (actually, it is not only seen enough, but "feels good", as one approaches full enlightenment, in clear stages). ] "God" is basically seen as a manifestation of "self" (and it is not at all hard to see this); thus, then also, when 'God' is invoked (in any way), it is highly likely your "self" (or what is left of it and here) INTRUDES. The concept of "God" per se impels one to have situation-general aspects of "self" (and to a Buddhist this would often be seen as lacking in appropriate discriminations). And, perhaps, with "god" one might well have some situation-specific/circumstance-specific aspects (intrusions) as well, in its "applications" (and this would be seen as wrong understanding to a Buddhist) . All, wrong thought (to a Buddhist). The site you cite does nothing to take care of these problems, but no doubt "supports" them to some extent.

Examples where "intrusions" seem likely (trusting Louis Brassard's summary):

" While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan" (Being God-assessing -- and that is NOT "seeing things as THEY are".)

and

" Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God. " (Be happy and seek no further sharable knowledge, thus to some extent, be happily ignorant -- and that is NOT "seeing things as they are".)

Brad,

I am not a buddhist and you are likely not one. I did read a bit about it, I did practice daily meditation for decades. I am sympathic to a lot of what I have read. But it does not make me a buddhist. I do not think that buddhism is remotly in contradiction with any other form of religious practice. Buddhism was developed into around 5th BCE india society by a indian prince. It is an offshoot of hindoism. The core is very similar to hindoism but it shed off most of it which made it a kind exportable induism and it is why most Asia became buddhism at some point. It is remarkable that secular westerner almost allergic to christianity border line positivist like you have some sympathy with Buddhism; it is not a coincidence; It posit almost no metaphysics. It kept the reincarnation stuff but most westerner do not pay attention this relic of the cast system. Abrahamic and persian religions have paradise as the after life while indues have many lifes and possibly break out of life in Nirvanic paradise. This is necessary to justify the total social unfairness of casts. It does not need to personified gods or a God like most religion and this is make it easy . for postivists. But positivists are totally naive about christianity and just assume that the personafication of the gods or of God has to be litterally believed in christianity. For sure, the evangelists of the type biologos are very much litteralists and I disagree with their litteralist. They are very much the mirror image of the positivists and are perfectly fitted to oppose each other. The proof is that you can't see that I am not a litteralist, that I do not have a personified otion of God but it has to be invisible to you. To return to Buddhist. I find their notion that the goal of life is to become illuminated and to break free of illusion of the existence of a ''me'' not equivalent at all with the type of materialistic saying the consciousness is a total illusion. The buddhistic ego illusion and the compatibilistic conception of consciousness are not equivalent at all. Now what is God for me: God = LIFE and all including the universe is living and a form of life and has a form of consciousness.

Dear Louis Brassard

I have been a Buddhist since 1973. I have read all the words of the historical Buddha (the Pali Canon) -- and I have comprehensively summarized that ( https://mynichecomp.com , my site) .

Buddhists are atheists and for good reasons (previously indicated).

The Buddha did sometimes speak of the "existence levels of gods" for some reason -- likely, selectively for some audiences; these 'gods', though, while having some virtue and long lives, are still mortal, not enlightened, and have no noteworthy powers.

I pay no attention to any supernatural aspects of what the Buddha said, because it is inconsistent with what HE set as peoples' prime directive: to realize everything for yourselves (to "see things as they really are"). But, sometimes the main thing may have been to get some people to first listen.

Read my site. It is only 90 pages. Here is the bibliography (which includes the vast majority of the Pali Canon):

Major Sources for the Comments and elaborations on the summary of B. Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words, An Anthology In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha) The Dhammapada: The Buddha's Path to Wisdom (a collection of the Buddha's verses; print version) What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada The Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya (Teachings of the Buddha) The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya (Teachings of the Buddha) Abhidhammattha Sangaha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (Vipassana Meditation and the Buddha's Teachings) Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization (the Buddha's Satipatthana Sutta and extensive commentary) selected suttas of the Long Discourses (Teachings of the Buddha) The above list is what I recommend to others (minus the Abhidhamma), for a near fully complete, first-hand study of Theravada Buddhism (study of the majority of the actual words of the Buddha; and, it is first-hand exposure to essentially all the content of the teachings). NOTE: I have read every word of the Buddha (i.e. all the words of the Buddha) that were not intended particularly for monks, so you may consider my views well-founded. [ In addition to the above reading list, you will also notice some quotes from the Numerical Discourses among the quotes in the main text of the web-site, and very occasionally some quotes from major Theravada scholars. ]

Dear Brad,

Atheism is often defined by atheists as not beleiving in the existence of deities. I do not accept this definition given that I do not strictly speaking believe in deities in the way atheists think what it is to believe in deities. But I am religious and not an atheist but again I use the word religious not in a way an atheist would use it. So the atheists do not know what atheists commonly are in the west. I do not consider buddhists as atheists even if they do not believe in deities. There is a lot of similarities between ancient philosophy (see Pierre Hadot), the way the greeks of the 500BCE conceived of philosophy as a way of life. Vey different notion as most have of philosophy. I do not believe in any supernatural either but my notion of the natural do not conform to most naturalism conceive. Everything that exist has to be natural but what is the natural is not something we can defined given our vast ignorance. There is no difference for me between the state of Nirvana and what would be called into the polytheistic religions kwowing the gods or what would be called in christianity being close to God. Only different way to express oneself. I will have a look at your site.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God or gods and comes from the Greek ἄθεος, without gods.

Atheism is not a belief system or an 'alternative' to religion it is not possible to be a 'committed' or 'devout' atheist.

Neither is atheism a rejection of gods. In the absence of a belief in supernatural entities there is nothing to reject.

It is often difficult if not impossible for a believer in the supernatural to grasp the concept since they are convinced of divine entities, they experience belief while athesists do not.

Humans appear to have a need for purpose and seem to be the only animals that worry about the future. This has caused them to imagine deities, afterlives and some divine purpose in existence. This is of course an anthropocentric interpretation of the natural world placing humans at the center of things.

A more naturalist approach places humans as simply one organism among many. Life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years and complex multicelled life since around 650 million years ago. Single celled organisms were here first and without doubt they will still be here long after we have gone. No one knows whether they believe in deities but it seems unlikley.

Dear Barry,

What is on the surface is a piety of gods or God induces at a deeper level different attitudes of living; I am of the opinion that there is no gods or God but what is important is the way of life induced by this piety; what you belief on the surface is not as much important to what you do and your relation with life. I don't believe in gods or God but I am close in my attitude in life with the attitude in life of those that believe and I am far to the attitude in life of those who follow the prevailing winds of consumerism, maximization of entertainment, running after money, or fame, in short do not counter EGOISM which is the default way of life when one do not strive towards traditional way of life. There is a very tiny minority of atheist that have their own form of piety, striving towards the deeper call of life and which are not atheist because they have a personal piety. There is also the believers in gods or God who do not have really a deep piety and who are very border line atheists.