4 truths to prove evolution is religious and not scientific

[Kurieuo]

Well that's fine, K. You and I just have a different definition of religion. You can't call any religion "false" because, in and of itself, religions are just functional. You can talk about true or false propositions to which they hold, but you can't say the religions themselves are "false"--at best, you could say they were "faulty."

I don't agree with that conclusion, personally. I would label Islam a false religion. And why? Precisely because the definition of religion is NOT like the definition of a spoon. Consider another example. You can talk about "false" men. It sounds funny, but we know what these are. Robots, models, etc., would be such. They are made to look like people, but they really aren't after all. They may function the same way, but essentially, they are not the same things. Or consider "false believers." They look like and act like (function like) believers, but essentially they are false.

Applied to religion, I see Christianity (orthodoxly speaking) as the true religion. All others are pseudo-religions. They are counterfeits. They are fakes. They are NOT religions in the same sense of the word as Christianity is, anymore than robots are people. They are imitations, corruptions of God's religion. Nothing more.

But, again, that's why I started this line of thought. I don't, personally, think we should define religion functionally. Almost everyone does these days. I just believe that is a bad approach. *shrug*

I understand what you are saying. I am interested to know what you mean by Christianity as the true religion. I mean, what comprises the religion of Christianity?

[Jac3510]

I understand what you are saying. I am interested to know what you mean by Christianity as the true religion. I mean, what comprises the religion of Christianity?

I would answer that two ways, depending on how we mean the word "religion" itself. If we are referring to it in the common way, as related to a body of beliefs, I would say that Christianity is "the true religion" in that it is "God's religion." By that, I mean it is the way that God Himself believes.

To this extent, absolutely none of us practice true Christianity. Each of our belief systems diverge somewhere from God's, to the extent that we diverge, our beliefs (and thus religion), are wrong, and to call that "religion" is actually false. That portion of our religion is false, because there is only one true religion: God's. I believe that He has made His religion clear in His Word. That people argue over how to interpret it doesn't change the fact that it is there for all to see and study, and, as I've said before, I believe that ALL differences in interpretation are related solely to HOW we interpret.

That means that there are some wholesale "religions," such as Islam and Buddhism, that are entirely false. They are pseudo-religions in every possible sense. While they may be built on some truth, that just makes them all the more counterfeit (after all, good counterfeit money looks more like real money that bad counterfeit money). Such religions have the appearance of godliness, but deny the power thereof. But other wholesale religions, such as Christianity, are broadly reflective of THE religion, and some of its denominations are closer than others, and some individuals are yet closer than others.

I don't want to belabor the point, but let me give one more example. Islam is a false religion in several ways. It takes several truths--God exists, He is holy, chose Abraham, etc.--and uses them in a counterfeit way. And that's the underlying point of ALL religions. They all take existing truth and modify/deny it so that it is no longer truth, but only contains something that resembles the truth it was taken from.

The second way we can use the word "religion" relates more to practice. James says that "true religion" is to love each other. Here, we are less concerned with a body of beliefs (orthodoxy) and more concerned with right practice (orthopraxy). How would God live? How would God have us live? We are practicing the true religion when we love one another in Christ, by faith, and not by works (for all things not of faith is sin, and without faith, we can't please God). Again, as above, other people of other religions may love one another and keep God's law written on their hearts, but that's just a matter of them taking real truth and modifying for their own purposes. They take objective truth (say, the Moral Law) and, based on that, create a counterfeit system of ethics. The good ones look very much like God's Law, but in the end, they are NOT His Law. They are our laws, fashioned to look like His.

Only in Christ, then, is orthodoxy/orthopraxy--true religion--possible. Everything else is false, not functionally, but by what it actually is.

I'm still thinking through some of this, but that's the basic idea of where I'm at now. Thoughts/critiques?

[Kurieuo]

I understand what you are saying. I am interested to know what you mean by Christianity as the true religion. I mean, what comprises the religion of Christianity?

I would answer that two ways, depending on how we mean the word "religion" itself. If we are referring to it in the common way, as related to a body of beliefs, I would say that Christianity is "the true religion" in that it is "God's religion." By that, I mean it is the way that God Himself believes.

To this extent, absolutely none of us practice true Christianity. Each of our belief systems diverge somewhere from God's, to the extent that we diverge, our beliefs (and thus religion), are wrong, and to call that "religion" is actually false. That portion of our religion is false, because there is only one true religion: God's. I believe that He has made His religion clear in His Word. That people argue over how to interpret it doesn't change the fact that it is there for all to see and study, and, as I've said before, I believe that ALL differences in interpretation are related solely to HOW we interpret.

That means that there are some wholesale "religions," such as Islam and Buddhism, that are entirely false. They are pseudo-religions in every possible sense. While they may be built on some truth, that just makes them all the more counterfeit (after all, good counterfeit money looks more like real money that bad counterfeit money). Such religions have the appearance of godliness, but deny the power thereof. But other wholesale religions, such as Christianity, are broadly reflective of THE religion, and some of its denominations are closer than others, and some individuals are yet closer than others.

I don't want to belabor the point, but let me give one more example. Islam is a false religion in several ways. It takes several truths--God exists, He is holy, chose Abraham, etc.--and uses them in a counterfeit way. And that's the underlying point of ALL religions. They all take existing truth and modify/deny it so that it is no longer truth, but only contains something that resembles the truth it was taken from.

The second way we can use the word "religion" relates more to practice. James says that "true religion" is to love each other. Here, we are less concerned with a body of beliefs (orthodoxy) and more concerned with right practice (orthopraxy). How would God live? How would God have us live? We are practicing the true religion when we love one another in Christ, by faith, and not by works (for all things not of faith is sin, and without faith, we can't please God). Again, as above, other people of other religions may love one another and keep God's law written on their hearts, but that's just a matter of them taking real truth and modifying for their own purposes. They take objective truth (say, the Moral Law) and, based on that, create a counterfeit system of ethics. The good ones look very much like God's Law, but in the end, they are NOT His Law. They are our laws, fashioned to look like His.

Only in Christ, then, is orthodoxy/orthopraxy--true religion--possible. Everything else is false, not functionally, but by what it actually is.

I'm still thinking through some of this, but that's the basic idea of where I'm at now. Thoughts/critiques?

I think you touch on something in your very first paragraph where you write: 'I would say that Christianity is "the true religion" in that it is "God's religion." By that, I mean it is the way that God Himself believes.'

I was trying to work out a way to describe Christianity as a true religion in the sense of what could be defined as orthodox Christian beliefs. I could not define orthodoxy, since what I believe is orthodox may differ to what other Christians believe is orthodox and I may be wrong (by orthodox I mean what is core to Christianity, or what makes Christianity itself Christian). Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe I am right regarding for example Christ's nature being fully divine and human being central to Christianity, or a Trinitarian understanding of God. However, any definition I provide is defined from my limited perspective and understanding of such truths.

Saying Christianity is "God's religion" however changes the perspective of Christianity from being anthropologically-centred (or Kurieuo-centred) to one that is God-centred. Your words rang a bell in my head that perhaps Christianity ought to be defined Christologically, that is, through Christ rather than anthropologically through man. Christianity is the true religion as it comes from and through Christ. Whereas it is not the true religion once we take up any particular man-instituted form of it. Only Christ (God) has the complete truth and understanding, and thus it is only revelation from Christ down the man that we can touch upon the truth of Christianity. Whereas humanity in any rational pursuit to work out and understand Christianity completely (as we as Christians do when we debate creation, eschatology, faith, grace, works, salvation, etc) will always fall short of the completely true Christianity.

I am not sure if I am making sense, but hopefully you understand what I am getting at.

[Jac3510]

Saying Christianity is "God's religion" however changes the perspective of Christianity from being anthropologically-centred (or Kurieuo-centred) to one that is God-centred. Your words rang a bell in my head that perhaps Christianity ought to be defined Christologically, that is, through Christ rather than anthropologically through man. Christianity is the true religion as it comes from and through Christ. Whereas it is not the true religion once we take up any particular man-instituted form of it. Only Christ (God) has the complete truth and understanding, and thus it is only revelation from Christ down the man that we can touch upon the truth of Christianity. Whereas humanity in any rational pursuit to work out and understand Christianity completely (as we as Christians do when we debate creation, eschatology, faith, grace, works, salvation, etc) will always fall short of the completely true Christianity.

Ah, that's beautiful. You put into words my own thoughts much better than I did. Very, very good. I like that a lot.

I like it especially because it allows for degrees of falseness, which is something we deal with on a daily basis. Some answers may be "close enough," while others may be far enough off to warrant a complete rework of the given problem. That whole idea could really be unpacked quite a bit, I think . . .

[Kurieuo]

Saying Christianity is "God's religion" however changes the perspective of Christianity from being anthropologically-centred (or Kurieuo-centred) to one that is God-centred. Your words rang a bell in my head that perhaps Christianity ought to be defined Christologically, that is, through Christ rather than anthropologically through man. Christianity is the true religion as it comes from and through Christ. Whereas it is not the true religion once we take up any particular man-instituted form of it. Only Christ (God) has the complete truth and understanding, and thus it is only revelation from Christ down the man that we can touch upon the truth of Christianity. Whereas humanity in any rational pursuit to work out and understand Christianity completely (as we as Christians do when we debate creation, eschatology, faith, grace, works, salvation, etc) will always fall short of the completely true Christianity.

Ah, that's beautiful. You put into words my own thoughts much better than I did. Very, very good. I like that a lot.

I like it especially because it allows for degrees of falseness, which is something we deal with on a daily basis. Some answers may be "close enough," while others may be far enough off to warrant a complete rework of the given problem. That whole idea could really be unpacked quite a bit, I think . . .

I have always stalled in defining Christian orthodoxy, and it was your prompting which lead me to dedicate more serious thought to such a question.

Being able to treat Christianity realistically, that is, as real objective truth similar to say mathematics and logic, means we have a standard by which (whether or not we have complete knowledge of it) some forms of Christian beliefs are more close, while others so far off they ought to be classified a Christian cult. I believed this previously, however unpacking this thought more, Christian apologists argue morality is rooted in God's nature and thus attempt to justify God's existence to those who believe some actions really are wrong. I believe a similar argument can be made for knowledge. In order for knowledge to really exist it needs to be rooted in God's nature. Thus, science which is built upon truth really existing in the world begs for God's existence like the moral arguments for God's existence. Getting back on topic, Christianity (a form of knowledge) would thus logically be rooted in God's nature. Thus, any talk of Christianity in epistemic terms must refer to Christianity as understood by God (not as understood by humanity).

Unpacking this further, just like we have a standard of morality which some stray from further than others, so too there would existing a standard of knowledge which some are closer to than others. To say Christianity is true, is not to say what we believe of Christianity is true, but rather Christianity as knowledge rooted in God is true. This helps to answer the skeptic's challenge of how we know we are right in our Christian beliefs given the many varieties of Christian denominations out there existing which all differ in their beliefs. Each denomination could be seen (and I think ought to be seen) as a pursuit in Christian knowledge and understanding of such knowledge. All denominations believe this Christian knowledge exists regardless of whether we ever know it as completely as God does, and just because some (including us) may be wrong regarding specific Christian beliefs, this does not mean we are wrong regarding Christianity. The skeptic who believes otherwise commits the logical fallacy of composition.

Regarding which specific Christian beliefs are more likely to be true, we would need criteria which makes certain beliefs in Christianity more warranted than others. For example, an evaluation of similarities in beliefs across varying Christian denominations I think would serve as a good indicator as to what comprises essential Christian truths. Or understanding what Christ Himself taught and early Christian beliefs which transpired shortly thereafter would be another good indication (early Christian creeds would be enlightening in this respect). What I believe as core to Christianity (Christian orthodoxy) is in part due to these two criteria.

Regarding secondary Christian doctrines, we could expect wide divergence or little to no discussion of them early on in Christianity. I see this would include creation and eschatological beliefs. Again, we could develop criteria to set apart which beliefs are more warranted. Since we do not have much early Christian thoughts (as far as I am aware), or Christ who clearly teaches us one position over another, as Christians we might turn to more non-traditional and universal epistemic pursuits of justification. For example, GodandScience.org places emphasis upon God's natural revelation and what we understand of the world we reside within as strong evidence warranting one interpretation of Scripture over another (namely the Day-Age Progressive Creation position). However, based on the two criteria in my previous paragraph I do not see it would be a warranted Christian belief to depart from Scripture (which I believe many Christian Theistic evolutionists are often happy to do). Christians who accept Scripture as an acceptable epistemic rule on matters of truth would be have a more warranted Christian belief than those Christians who believe otherwise, since Scripture was esteemed by Christ Himself [albeit OT books] and the canonical books we accept today gained widespread acceptance throughout early Christian communities.

Out of interests sake, I have here delved into my central idea you quoted above and applied it on quite a few fronts regarding the diverse beliefs throughout the many Christian denominations which fall under the Christianity. If this central idea was understood more then perhaps more understanding between Christians who differ regarding secondary beliefs would follow. While we are diverse in opinions regarding specific Christian beliefs, we still stand united under the truth of Christianity which we as Christians like to dissect and pursue. I see benefit to understanding this as I am sure many others here also would.

[Jac3510]

I think you've given a very good exposition of the idea I'd first presented. You've certainly, and correctly, taken it further than I had. For me, the most important observation you made is that "In order for knowledge to really exist it needs to be rooted in God's nature." This is profound, and I believe true. I came to believe some time ago that existence itself is rooted in God's nature (or, perhaps more accurately, IS God's nature). Morality, as you pointed out, has the same quality. And if we really want to get to the foundation of all the variations on the Cosmological Argument, they all point to God as the First Cause--the necessary cause/existence--of all subsequent contingent existences.

On this, we can point out that knowledge itself is a contingent reality, and thus cannot exist independently. It is contingent on reality itself, and reality itself is exhaustively known by God, and thus, all knowledge is in God (there's a simple philosophical proof for your view of omniscience). But that means that all partial knowledge is in fact derivative knowledge. To the degree it is correct, it is ultimately caused (like morality and existence) by God Himself. Very good.

If that is the case, then we can properly distinguish between true religion and knowledge of true religion. To say that Christianity is true is an ontological claim. To say that we know Christianity is true, or that our version of Christianity is more true than another's, is an epistemological claim. So, again, you are right that the nontheist who rejects Christianity (ontologically) because some Christians have certain parts wrong (epistemologically) would be to commit a composition fallacy.

The only place, then, where'd I'd like to offer a different view would be on HOW we know true Christianity. You've pointed to a historical method, primarily, which, of course, has its benefits. But I think it would be more helpful to appeal, again, to God's nature. Logic works as it does because it is derivative of His nature, and thus, true Christianity should be knowable by the proper application of logic. Of course, such a tool would be applied to the historical realities that you have pointed to. But it is very possible (and in some ways, probable), that the early church had some basic doctrines wrong. It is a matter of the philosophy of religion, and then of theology itself, to decide our interpretational method. The ultimate question would be one of authority. I don't see the Church Fathers has authoritative, and I know you don't either. I see, as you do, the Bible as authoritative and none else, but we come to that conclusion by means of a certain line of reasoning. So, that reasoning should be rigorously employed to fully develop a method, or tool, to unpack from God's nature what God believes about religion. To the extent, then, that that tool is properly constructed and then employed, we should have no problem getting to correct knowledge of true religion. Yes, no?

[Kurieuo]

I think you've given a very good exposition of the idea I'd first presented. You've certainly, and correctly, taken it further than I had. For me, the most important observation you made is that "In order for knowledge to really exist it needs to be rooted in God's nature." This is profound, and I believe true. I came to believe some time ago that existence itself is rooted in God's nature (or, perhaps more accurately, IS God's nature). Morality, as you pointed out, has the same quality. And if we really want to get to the foundation of all the variations on the Cosmological Argument, they all point to God as the First Cause--the necessary cause/existence--of all subsequent contingent existences.

On this, we can point out that knowledge itself is a contingent reality, and thus cannot exist independently. It is contingent on reality itself, and reality itself is exhaustively known by God, and thus, all knowledge is in God (there's a simple philosophical proof for your view of omniscience). But that means that all partial knowledge is in fact derivative knowledge. To the degree it is correct, it is ultimately caused (like morality and existence) by God Himself. Very good.

If that is the case, then we can properly distinguish between true religion and knowledge of true religion. To say that Christianity is true is an ontological claim. To say that we know Christianity is true, or that our version of Christianity is more true than another's, is an epistemological claim. So, again, you are right that the nontheist who rejects Christianity (ontologically) because some Christians have certain parts wrong (epistemologically) would be to commit a composition fallacy.

I think you describe the distinction well.

The only place, then, where'd I'd like to offer a different view would be on HOW we know true Christianity. You've pointed to a historical method, primarily, which, of course, has its benefits. But I think it would be more helpful to appeal, again, to God's nature. Logic works as it does because it is derivative of His nature, and thus, true Christianity should be knowable by the proper application of logic. Of course, such a tool would be applied to the historical realities that you have pointed to. But it is very possible (and in some ways, probable), that the early church had some basic doctrines wrong. It is a matter of the philosophy of religion, and then of theology itself, to decide our interpretational method. The ultimate question would be one of authority. I don't see the Church Fathers has authoritative, and I know you don't either. I see, as you do, the Bible as authoritative and none else, but we come to that conclusion by means of a certain line of reasoning. So, that reasoning should be rigorously employed to fully develop a method, or tool, to unpack from God's nature what God believes about religion. To the extent, then, that that tool is properly constructed and then employed, we should have no problem getting to correct knowledge of true religion. Yes, no?

How we know what we know of Christianity is true ultimately comes down to the issue of how we can know anything we know is true. What I offered up were just some criteria for how I think we could be assured of what we believe is likely true, rather than how we can know what we believe is true. Such criteria are not the be-all and end-all for guaranteeing what we know is true. To provide an example, someone whose beliefs hold together coherently and consistently is more likely going to be true than someone whose beliefs are either incoherent or contradictory. Likewise, I think coherent and sound teachings closer to Christ which gained widespread acceptance throughout early Christianity, are more likely to be true than say someone reading Scripture 2000 years later on their own through the eyes of their culture and experiences. Many Christian cults have formed due to wrong personal interpretations, and interestingly such cults often challenge traditional Christian beliefs that were formed. Hopefully this answers many of your questions above.

To make clear my response to your last question: Yes, I believe we can have correct knowledge of Christianity. If I did not believe I had correct knowledge there would be no point to my debating certain points. I would encourage a holistic approach to knowledge and belief though. One that grounds epistemology not only in reason, but also experience, emotions, intuition and the whole human subject when properly aligned as being truth conducive.

[Gerald McGrew]

I want to come up with a quick no-brainer to tell people on why evolution is religious and not science.

Curious...why would you want to do that?

I need something quick and obvious. Too much technical information will not get the point across and risk confusing them.

I'd advise you to be careful. You run the risk of speaking in simplistic terms, but when your audience later encounters those who can get the opposite point across on technical terms, you might just cause them to start questioning their faith.

4 truths to prove evolution is religious and not scientific:

The problem is, none of these four are true in that they don't do anything to demonstrate "evolution is religious". Three address questions completely outside of biology, and the other addresses the origins of life. But evolution is compatable with any origins scenario, be it chemical, panspermia, special creation, whatever.

This is something I don't think creationists appreciate enough; when you present your fellow believers arguments that are either off-track or even false, eventually some of them will discover the errors and I guarantee it will lead some of them to start questioning everything else they've been taught.

I understand your need to defend your faith, but you should strive to do so in an accurate manner.

[zoegirl]

agree with you, even in our arguments we should strive to get our details correct

[Himantolophus]

No one has ever made matter appear from nothing.

This isn't evolution... but maybe God created the Big Bang and evolution along with it in the Beginning? Problem solved

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind

Where did you see evolution predicting this? It doesn't so no more on this.

No one has ever seen a star form but there have been many explosions witnessed

We see evidence of star formation all over the place. We see planetary accretion disks around stars. Stars are dying all the time so why wouldn't God make them able to be born too? Plus, the timescales for this to happen are too long to directly observe. Stellar evolution is pretty much a fact as we can see all of the freakin' stages of it right now!

No one has ever produced life from non living things.

Abiogenesis isn't evolution

2 out of 4 ain't bad

Science has not been able to do any of these. However to believe in evolution requires that you have faith that all these happened.

whatever you say buddy

[TrvthSeeker]

pplied to religion, I see Christianity (orthodoxly speaking) as the true religion. All others are pseudo-religions. They are counterfeits. They are fakes. They are NOT religions in the same sense of the word as Christianity is, anymore than robots are people. They are imitations, corruptions of God's religion. Nothing more.

There are hundreds of different versions of Christianity. The LDS, for example, claim to be christian. So which of the Christian denominations is the orthodox religion?

Before reading your post, I always kind of figured the best approach was to simply flip a coin. Or draw one out of a hat. Let's see--today I'm--presbyterian. Yeah, that's a good one.

[CharlieB]

For a creation forum there seems to be a lot of evolutionists

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind

Where did you see evolution predicting this? It doesn't so no more on this.

Actually I clarified that to "No one has ever seen and animal change to another kind by successive births"

If this is not what the evolution religion states, can you please explain what it does say? Are you saying that it says a creature already born suddenly grows new parts depending on need? If so I'll make that #5

We see evidence of star formation all over the place

My statement was "No one has ever seen a star FORM". Since no one ever witnessed a new star in a place that there wasn't one before this statement is true. I am not talking about using a stronger telescope and saying "oh lookee... a new star".

That comment about "evidence" is very telling. You seem to have already made up your mind that stars create themselves even though no one has ever witnessed it. That proves my point about evolution being a religion requiring faith.

The "this one is not evolution" remark is almost comical. All these are part of their religion. I wasn't specifically talking about darwin's chapter in their "bible".

The whole purpose of my post was to fine tune my statements so they will be SHORT and CLEAR. People now a days only want to see the next TV show and don't want to think. I wanted to get feedback from other people like myself who believe in the creation religion and know about the many holes the evolution religion that prove that it is not scientific. I am not afraid to call my belief a religion but apparently the evolutionists are.

This is the list I have so far.

1) No one has ever made matter appear from nothing.

2) No one has ever seen and animal change to another kind by successive births

3) No one has ever seen a star form but there have been many explosions witnessed

4) No one has ever produced life from non living things.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve them? I think they are straight forward now but I am open to constructive feedback.

[zoegirl]

But, again, the successive births is still not precise.

the definition of evolution is a difference in reproduction and survival that, OVER TIME, brings about population changes. We won't see in one animal, a diffrence in offspring in that one generation. It is in multiple generations, from parents to grandchildren to greatgrandchildren that we would see changes. and we *do* see population changes witthin a small spectrum.

And that is more of the crux of the problem, not that we don't see it in the one generation, but the fact that we *can't* observe over thousands of years that bring about the doubt. We can't really observe the long-term changes.

[CharlieB]

You are saying the same thing I am. Evolutions believe that an animal will change to another kind though successive births. There was no restrictions in that statement as to the NUMBER of successive births. This type of change has never been observed. A dog is a great example. They have been bread for thousands of years. Intelligent guided breeding I might add to force change. This has only resulted in a different type of dog. Never a goat, giraffe or pine tree.

Of course offspring look different (small changes as you called them). That is no proof that the offspring will eventually change into another type of creature.

What the evolutionist use to confuse people is "It takes millions of years" Anyone could say that as an argument for anything. Think about it for a moment. Suppose someone said "The moon was once green cheese a billion squared years ago". No one could prove that statement incorrect. Convenient isn't it? It is unfalsifiable. It takes faith to believe it. It is unscientific. Evolution requires this kind of faith and therefore it is a religious belief. You might think that the moon once being green cheese is looney but a lot of people think the belief that people evolved from apes is well.... er .....looney.

If anything that is improvable has to be a scientific theory then the belief if God must be science also. After all, a belief in God sure does explain a lot about our existence.

[zoegirl]

i HAVE no problem with what you say, I'm just pointing out that yours was not the proper definition of evolution.

I just think that we need to be careful of "simplifying" things down to bullet points.