Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

[Whereneverever]

Hi, nice to meet you :tongue_smilie:. We are a homeschooling family that teaches evolution, though I'm not especially Christian, so the Bible compatability issues is nonexistent for me. Though I have read the Bible, and I don't recall anything in Genesis that specifically excluded the concept of the big Bang and subsequent evolution. Genesis never specified how god did anything.

 

Hm, according to the Bible account God spoke and it was.

[justamouse]

Me too. I believe in evolution as fact but at the same time I believe that God created it all. I believe that he had a "plan" from the very beginning. Evolution is just how that "plan" has played out over millions and millions of years.

 

I teach my children evolution but we give God the glory for all of it.

 

I also had not been exposed to young earth creationalist until I started homeschooling. Now it seems that this is all I hear. I don't personally know of one homeschooling family that teaches evolution as fact. I'm sure you guys are out there. I just haven't met you yet. ;)

 

This is exactly what we believe, and I teach it as fact.

[Ester Maria]

When I teach scientific theories, I teach scientific theories, and don't deal with whether they're compatible with religious beliefs.

 

All of science is a set of theories put together to form an explanatory model of the world. It's an imperfect model which is continuously being rewritten and adapted. We teach the understanding of the nature of science too (scientific method, as opposed to religious worldview, Popper, etc.), and we put religion completely aside when teaching science because it's methodologically different perspective of the world and has nothing to do with scientific method and process. We don't say "religion is wrong" or "science is the ultimate truth", we just separate the two.

 

We aren't religious, but we teach Bible from a cultural-background perspective (as Italian Jews, Judaism and Catholicism are the most culturally relative to us). Again, completely separated from our science classes. :)

[IsabelC]

When I teach scientific theories, I teach scientific theories, and don't deal with whether they're compatible with religious beliefs.

 

All of science is a set of theories put together to form an explanatory model of the world. It's an imperfect model which is continuously being rewritten and adapted. We teach the understanding of the nature of science too (scientific method, as opposed to religious worldview, Popper, etc.), and we put religion completely aside when teaching science because it's methodologically different perspective of the world and has nothing to do with scientific method and process. We don't say "religion is wrong" or "science is the ultimate truth", we just separate the two.

 

We aren't religious, but we teach Bible from a cultural-background perspective (as Italian Jews, Judaism and Catholicism are the most culturally relative to us). Again, completely separated from our science classes. :)

Snap! I could have written your post, except that we're not Italian Jews.

 

how much time do most homeschoolers spend teaching their children about things they don't think are true or accurate?

Quiet a lot, actually! I think that it would be a pretty poor education that only teaches scientific facts. We are do not belong to the Christian faith in any way, shape of form, but we believe that studying the Bible is an indispensable part of the children's education. It is the single most influential work of literature in Western culture and philosophy, and knowledge of it is essential for cultural literacy (not to mention that it contains some rollicking good stories!). A basic grounding in the sacred texts and/or precepts of other world faiths is also wonderful if you can fit it in, as religion is a major factor in explaining so much of history and contemporary politics. Edited September 21, 2009 by Hotdrink

[Tea Time]

When I teach scientific theories, I teach scientific theories, and don't deal with whether they're compatible with religious beliefs.

 

All of science is a set of theories put together to form an explanatory model of the world. It's an imperfect model which is continuously being rewritten and adapted. We teach the understanding of the nature of science too (scientific method, as opposed to religious worldview, Popper, etc.), and we put religion completely aside when teaching science because it's methodologically different perspective of the world and has nothing to do with scientific method and process. We don't say "religion is wrong" or "science is the ultimate truth", we just separate the two.

 

We aren't religious, but we teach Bible from a cultural-background perspective (as Italian Jews, Judaism and Catholicism are the most culturally relative to us). Again, completely separated from our science classes. :)

 

Good post!

 

So this is what I taught my kids that teaching science is all about studying the art and it has limits. Studying religion or philosophy is about studying the artist, and it has limits, too. I also taught them that everyone questions the existence of an artist at times, and that a lot of people decide there is no artist at all. This is all part of the mystery of being human. We must be humble in our own view and be willing to be corrected. And we must be able to get along with people who are in a different place than we are. It is hard work. The hard work of living.

 

BTW, I taught evolution as the best theory we have about the "art." I expected them to get much more of that teaching when they took biology at the CC, but guess what? The instructor turned out to be a creationist homeschooling dad! LOL! Hey, maybe God had other ideas? Who am I to question? :tongue_smilie: He pretty much stayed away from the controversy, which was fine as there was plenty to cover without it. I am very pleased that my kids have had and will have more exposure to all kinds of ideas. I am puzzled at a school system that might limit that in any way. But ideas are wild and flying all over these days. I have hope that no one group will be able to control them, try as they might.

 

At any rate, fundamental creationist beliefs are not required in our faith. They will have to make up their own minds.

[Peek a Boo]

I am a Christian and I teach evolution. I read Francis Collin's book http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253383242&sr=8-1

 

The Language Of God and had a total come to Jesus moment that I didn't have to have my faith and science oppose eachother. I happily taught it from then on.

 

And, from Merriam Webster-when they call it the Theory of Evolution, it's not the 2nd definition. So when people say "evolution is just a theory", they're not using the correct scientific definition.

 

the scientific community has conveniently changed how they define "theory."

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1054249&highlight=theory#post1054249

Interestingly, in my dozens of textbooks, the definitions of 'theory, fact, law, and principle' are rarely even addressed until around the turn of this century (2000 AD). It's like they are common words and everyone knows what they mean. Then, these definitions begin to receive emphasis in the late 90s. Not only that, their meanings seem to change. Upon further investigation, I found that Craig Dilworth (philosopher of science) wrote a paper in 1990, published in 1994 (i think), which attempted to redefined these words. The reviews that I read on his paper were not flattering. However, the new definitions, though for the most part similar to the old, provided, what I will call a semantic-type emphasis to the word 'theory'. This emphasis seems suspiciously useful for falsely bolstering the argument that evolution is somehow 'more reliable' because it is a theory. From what I can tell, these new definitions have lately been creeping into the science textbooks. The funny thing is, they don't really change the science; they just change the language. For instance, according to this new idea, a 'fact' is no longer necessarily true. A 'fact' is, by the new definition, what we used to call, an 'observation'.

 

Hewitt: Conceptual Physics 2001 (BTW: A scientist whom I respect):

 

"But in Science, a fact is generally a close agreement by competent observers of a series of observations of the same phenomenon. For example, where it was once a fact that the universe is unchanging and permanent, today it is a fact that the universe is expanding and evolving. A scientific hypothesis, on the other hand, is an educated guess that is only persumed to be factual until tested by experiments. When a hypothesis has been tested over and over again and has not been contradicted, it may become known as a law or principle."

 

Why would science make this change? Because now, it sounds like a theory is the ultimate in truth; more true than even a fact. "It's a fact!" no longer means that it is true. Now we can say that science aspires to theories, not facts. Thus, the Theory of Evolution becomes almost sacred.

 

This entire reasoning is fallacious, of course, and the idea that somehow theories are more reliable than Laws of science or more true than facts is exactly the kind misunderstanding that I believe the new language is designed to achieve. Nothing has changed but the language. (Keep in mind, this language is in dispute and has not been agreed upon by the entire scientific community.) Theories are built on (what some are calling) facts. Facts, by this new definition are subject to change with new observations. When the facts change, the theory must change as well. The theory is still "Just a Theory" and subject to change like any other theory.

 

BTW: you won't find any reputable science source that denies that a all theories and laws are subject to change.

 

So, while I believe firmly that the theory of evolution is a pretty accurate description of how man arose, I am, at the same time, concerned that scientists are, perhaps, allowing the debate to shape their language and, perhaps, this is being done in a somewhat disingenuous fashion.

[cmarango]

All of this talk about evolution and creationism always makes me wonder:

 

Who/what created God?

 

This is always the question that I can never get past. Religion tries to answer the question about where the universe and everything in it originated from, but we never find out where God comes from. At some point you just have to accept that something (God or the universe) just existed.

 

I am planning on educating my children by bringing up this question. If they decide that God created the universe, then they will have to decide how much input/control God currently has. If they decide that the universe simply existed, then they will have to decide what to do about all of the conudrums that surround us in science. Is this too simplistic of an approach?

 

Christina

[Tea Time]

All of this talk about evolution and creationism always makes me wonder:

 

Who/what created God?

 

This is always the question that I can never get past. Religion tries to answer the question about where the universe and everything in it originated from, but we never find out where God comes from. At some point you just have to accept that something (God or the universe) just existed.

 

I am planning on educating my children by bringing up this question. If they decide that God created the universe, then they will have to decide how much input/control God currently has. If they decide that the universe simply existed, then they will have to decide what to do about all of the conudrums that surround us in science. Is this too simplistic of an approach?

 

Christina

 

Here are some ideas for you to ponder.

 

Remember that you take all your assumptions from inside the "creation" so you think in terms of "created" because it is all you know. You also think inside the space/time continuum because it is all you know. It is rather like a person living in a cave for their entire existence being told that there is a sky that "goes on forever." Who could conceive of such a thing when all they ever knew was a cave? We have imaginations, but in some ways they have limits that we might not even be aware of at this point.

 

The concept of God kind of includes in it the concept of the "first cause." God is "outside" the creation (not physically in the way we think necessarily, but not bound by it). "He" created being "created" much like the author of a book lays down the "rules" inside a book that that he writes, but God is not bound to those rules any more than an author is bound to the rules in his book. He does not need to be “created†just because it appears that all else is created. Not perfect analogies, but helpful to some people. I didn’t make those up, BTW! :lol:

[Phred]

Absolutely not, but I *always* use the word "theory" with it, just as my parents did.

I take it that you think "theory" means that it's somehow unproven? As in, "I have a theory about that Watson."

 

That is not what a scientific theory is at all. When you take many facts and bundle them all up under one umbrella we call that umbrella a "theory".

 

What that means is... we see that life evolved. The theory explains how we think it evolved. That doesn't mean that, if we have the explanation wrong life evolved any less.

 

It's just like the Theory of Gravity. In the early 1900s it changed when Einstein explained it better. The "theory" part changed, the facts that make it up stayed the same. Objects "fall" toward mass. Or... because they don't really fall would anyone not believe in gravity?

[Phred]

All of this talk about evolution and creationism always makes me wonder:

 

Who/what created God?

 

This is always the question that I can never get past. Religion tries to answer the question about where the universe and everything in it originated from, but we never find out where God comes from. At some point you just have to accept that something (God or the universe) just existed.

 

I am planning on educating my children by bringing up this question. If they decide that God created the universe, then they will have to decide how much input/control God currently has. If they decide that the universe simply existed, then they will have to decide what to do about all of the conudrums that surround us in science. Is this too simplistic of an approach?

 

Christina

Before you can ask that question you have to show that a "god" exists. Can you prove fairies exist? Or anything about them? Not until you catch one.

[Peek a Boo]

Before you can ask that question you have to show that a "god" exists. Can you prove fairies exist? Or anything about them? Not until you catch one.

 

which is why actual observations are so important in science.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I am planning on educating my children by bringing up this question. If they decide that God created the universe, then they will have to decide how much input/control God currently has.

The current state of the world has many believing that there is no God, or that he does not care. The Bible says that God's enemy is currently controlling the world, and explains why and how this will be rectified.

Before you can ask that question you have to show that a "god" exists. Can you prove fairies exist? Or anything about them? Not until you catch one.

We cannot see the wind. We can see objects being affected by it. Before the invention of the microscope germs certainly existed, and we saw the affects of them. In the same way, we can see the affects of God, even though we cannot see Him. (Okay, so I am not really sure if it should be effect or affect, I changed it several times. hmmmm...)

[MomtoCandJ]

this is a very interesting thread, now where do you find home schooling textbooks based on evolution? I plan on teaching my daughter mainly evolution but also teach her all the other theories out there, along with my "theory", which is that God did the "Big Bang", God also has his hand in evolution and the flood well that was the last ice age.

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe the idea that God has designed and guided evolution is actually called Intelligent Design.

 

I know that Heart of Dakota has a couple of books that explain the ice age and dinosaurs from a Bible-believing perspective. I just ordered them.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I could never understand the conflict between creation and evolution. I do not find my faith threatened at all even though I take the creation story and many parts of the Bible metaphorically instead of literally. I do not think that those who wrote the story of creation ever intended it to be literal as well in my understanding. I believe that God created the Universe through the big bang and through the process of evolution knowing what the end result would be:). I do not believe this as the same as intelligent design. I definitely believe that it is ok to teach evolution and that it should be taught. There are many Christians who do not see a conflict in teaching evolution or who are threatened by science.

 

My 2 cents:)

Edited September 22, 2009 by priscilla
grammar

[Lovedtodeath]

Do you believe the great flood was a literal event? In your opinion, how does that mesh with Archaelogy and evolutionary timelines?

[kalanamak]

That doesn't mean that, if we have the explanation wrong life evolved any less.

 

 

:lol:

 

What a sentence!

 

BTW, stop shooting into the choir!

Edited September 22, 2009 by kalanamak

[Spy Car]

I believe the idea that God has designed and guided evolution is actually called Intelligent Design.

 

 

Definitely not correct. There are those who see evolution as a process guided by God, this is (from my understanding) the mainstream Catholic position, but ID is not that. ID is "anti-evolutionary".

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

Definitely not correct. There are those who see evolution as a process guided by God, this is (from my understanding) the mainstream Catholic position, but ID is not that. ID is "anti-evolutionary".

 

Bill

I wonder where I got that idea. Thanks for putting it right.

[MomtoCandJ]

where do I find books? All the books I find are for creationism, is there a site I am not able to find?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

where do I find books? All the books I find are for creationism, is there a site I am not able to find?

 

I would do a search for secular books on this site to find many great resources IMHO:)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Do you believe the great flood was a literal event? In your opinion, how does that mesh with Archaelogy and evolutionary timelines?

 

I believe that it may be an actual memory of a big, local area, flood from long ago. Otherwise, I believe it is metaphorical. I also understand as many Christians do that many things in the Bible are the ancient authors response to their faith, etc. I find it difficult to put into words but what I believe is spelled out by Marcus Borg quite well:).

[Cammie]

I believe in both evolution and an intelligent designer. (Although my desighner might look a bit different from what most are thinking of!) I don't have any problem with the belief that a God put all of this into motion - the big bang, the creation of the species. I believe it took millions and millions of years (which may be 7 days for God - how would we know?) I believe God is smart enough to have planted the seed for life and simply let it develop along its path.

[Phred]

I could never understand the conflict between creation and evolution. I do not find my faith threatened at all even though I take the creation story and many parts of the Bible metaphorically instead of literally. I do not think that those who wrote the story of creation ever intended it to be literal as well in my understanding. I believe that God created the Universe through the big bang and through the process of evolution knowing what the end result would be:). I do not believe this as the same as intelligent design. I definitely believe that it is ok to teach evolution and that it should be taught. There are many Christians who do not see a conflict in teaching evolution or who are threatened by science.

 

My 2 cents:)

I know many people just like you. I don't understand them. As I understand things, the Bible (and the Koran and the like) are "divinely inspired" manuscripts. This means they are written physically by men but the words are put into mens heads by God. (or gods) This means that the Bible is meant to be as perfect a book as can be found on this Earth. No mistakes. If you read it in the Bible it is true. Or as many write it, "True". So when you read:

 

Genesis 1

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

 

 

Why that means exactly that.

 

 

 

Yet in the first sentence on the first page in the first book of the Bible there is a mistake. We know that the earth is about 4.53 billion years old while the universe began at least 9 billion years before the earth did. So unless you're going to allow for 9 billion years of literary license the Bible isn't "True".

 

 

So you must take the Bible as metaphor. Only, this is problematic since each person can take a different meaning to each story, to each paragraph, to each word. The meaning is now in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. And that means that the Bible is no longer a book whose meaning is delivered by a deity but now it is one whose meaning is delivered by YOU.

 

 

 

That is threatening... no matter how you look at it.

[Spy Car]

I know many people just like you. I don't understand them. As I understand things, the Bible (and the Koran and the like) are "divinely inspired" manuscripts. This means they are written physically by men but the words are put into mens heads by God. (or gods) This means that the Bible is meant to be as perfect a book as can be found on this Earth. No mistakes. If you read it in the Bible it is true. Or as many write it, "True". So when you read:

 

Genesis 1

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

Yet in the first sentence on the first page in the first book of the Bible there is a mistake. We know that the earth is about 4.53 billion years old while the universe began at least 9 billion years before the earth did. So unless you're going to allow for 9 billion years of literary license the Bible isn't "True".

 

I think you misread the the opening line of Genesis. The rendering of the Hebrew (from my study as a non-Hebrew speaker/reader) should be something like:

 

At the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

 

Or

 

When God began to create the heaven and the earth

 

Not:

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [As if that was the first thing that ever happened].

 

Further, there was preexisting matter described in Genesis at the books opening. It was just chaotic or formless. But Genesis doesn't suggest utter "nothingness".

 

So this sentence is not necessarily a "mistake" especially from a non-fundamentalist/literalist perspective. And may well be highly prescient.

 

Bill

Edited September 23, 2009 by Spy Car

[Phred]

I think you misread the the opening line of Genesis. The rendering of the Hebrew (from my study as a non-Hebrew speaker/reader) should be something like:

 

At the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

 

Or

 

When God began to create the heaven and the earth

 

Not:

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [As if that was the first thing that ever happened].

 

Further, there was preexisting matter described in Genesis at the books opening. It was just chaotic or formless. But Genesis doesn't suggest utter "nothingness".

 

So this sentence is not necessarily a "mistake" especially from a non-fundamentalist/literalist perspective. And may well be highly prescient.

 

Bill

My friend, you'll have to discuss that with our dear King James whose translations were also supposedly guided by the hand of God.

 

:glare: Need I go on to point out that God created light in 1:4 but didn't create the Sun until 1:16 when he created TWO great lights... seemingly not knowing that one of the "great lights" was just reflecting the light of the other?

[nmoira]

 

I know many people just like you. I don't understand them. As I understand things, the Bible (and the Koran and the like) are "divinely inspired" manuscripts. This means they are written physically by men but the words are put into mens heads by God. (or gods) This means that the Bible is meant to be as perfect a book as can be found on this Earth. No mistakes. If you read it in the Bible it is true. Or as many write it, "True".

Disclaimer: I'm atheist, but I was raised Anglican and understand what Priscilla is talking about. Truth need not be so narrowly defined. Truth need not mean factually or literally correct: it can be found in a phrase or an image, in a metaphor or a parable. Truth can be found in an emotional resonance or intellectual excitement. A larger truth may exist which we can never understand, but only catch glimpses of peripherally, if you will. "Divinely inspired" doesn't necessarily equate to "comes with a decoder ring." Edited September 23, 2009 by nmoira

[WishboneDawn]

I know many people just like you. I don't understand them. As I understand things, the Bible (and the Koran and the like) are "divinely inspired" manuscripts. This means they are written physically by men but the words are put into mens heads by God. (or gods) This means that the Bible is meant to be as perfect a book as can be found on this Earth. No mistakes. If you read it in the Bible it is true.

 

Holy pile of logical fallacies Batman!

[justamouse]

Before you can ask that question you have to show that a "god" exists. Can you prove fairies exist? Or anything about them? Not until you catch one.

 

Oh, Oh, I can answer this one Mr. Kot-ter!

 

:)

 

(You would love The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins (I'm turning into a pimp with that book, I swear. Behold my purple fedora.). He's the one that mapped the human genome? He totally believes in evolution and shows that DNA proves it. But he's also a Christian who loves CS Lewis. )

 

The only way to prove there is a God, is that we, as humans we creatures born with a thirst for things spiritual, and that would not be within us unless there was an answer to that need.

[msjones]

I know many people just like you. I don't understand them. As I understand things, the Bible (and the Koran and the like) are "divinely inspired" manuscripts. This means they are written physically by men but the words are put into mens heads by God. (or gods) This means that the Bible is meant to be as perfect a book as can be found on this Earth. No mistakes. If you read it in the Bible it is true. Or as many write it, "True". So when you read:

 

Genesis 1

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

 

 

Why that means exactly that.

 

 

 

Yet in the first sentence on the first page in the first book of the Bible there is a mistake. We know that the earth is about 4.53 billion years old while the universe began at least 9 billion years before the earth did. So unless you're going to allow for 9 billion years of literary license the Bible isn't "True".

 

 

So you must take the Bible as metaphor. Only, this is problematic since each person can take a different meaning to each story, to each paragraph, to each word. The meaning is now in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. And that means that the Bible is no longer a book whose meaning is delivered by a deity but now it is one whose meaning is delivered by YOU.

 

 

 

That is threatening... no matter how you look at it.

 

You would be an interesting dinner guest.

[justamouse]

"Divinely inspired" doesn't necessarily equate to "comes with a decoder ring."

 

 

That needs to go in your tag line. :D

[justamouse]

My friend, you'll have to discuss that with our dear King James whose translations were also supposedly guided by the hand of God.

 

:glare: Need I go on to point out that God created light in 1:4 but didn't create the Sun until 1:16 when he created TWO great lights... seemingly not knowing that one of the "great lights" was just reflecting the light of the other?

 

 

King James got it so, so very wrong on so many accounts. Someone on another thread said it so well, a translation of a translation of a translation....

[Spy Car]

The only way to prove there is a God, is that we, as humans we creatures born with a thirst for things spiritual, and that would not be within us unless there was an answer to that need.

 

I'm not following this logic.

 

I (for one) wasn't born with a thirst for things spiritual. Does this mean there is no god?

 

And if there were one creator god and we were were to be born with some inherent need to connect with that spirit, wouldn't (by this argument) we all be drawn to the same god?

 

Instead through history people have worshipped local gods, rocks, river spirits, pantheons, and every other conceivable imagining of the "spirit world". KWIM?

 

Bill

[justamouse]

I'm not following this logic.

 

I (for one) wasn't born with a thirst for things spiritual. Does this mean there is no god?

 

And if there were one creator god and we were were to be born with some inherent need to connect with that spirit, wouldn't (by this argument) we all be drawn to the same god?

 

Instead through history people have worshipped local gods, rocks, river spirits, pantheons, and every other conceivable imagining of the "spirit world". KWIM?

 

Bill

 

I don't assume God is the white haired guy in the Sistine Chapel. So, however you worship, have at it. Why would that matter? It's a hunger for the spiritual, and we seek to fill it.

 

Maybe you're the anomaly. :D

 

And I actually bet you do. I haven't met an atheist yet who didn't worship something in their lives. Just not 'God' with all the trappings. One I knew worshipped art. Not with an alter, or candles, but it was where she spent most of her time and it gave her an emotional yearning and infilling.

Edited September 23, 2009 by justamouse

[nmoira]

 

And I actually bet you do. I haven't met an atheist yet who didn't worship something in their lives. Just not 'God' with all the trappings. One I knew worshipped art. Not with an alter, or candles, but it was where she spent most of her time and it gave her an emotional yearning and infilling.

If it is the case that humans are driven worship or to give themselves over to something, and that something is not necessarily a god, then how does this then prove the existence of a god?

[kalanamak]

It's a hunger for the spiritual, and we seek to fill it.

 

Maybe you're the anomaly. :D

 

And I actually bet you do. I haven't met an atheist yet who didn't worship something in their lives.

 

Not a lone anomaly.:D Huxley, in Point Counterpoint, has a character who felt that everything spiritual was irrelevant "the same way you know that Limburger cheese smells bad". I am not an atheist, but an apathist: I act as if there is no god, but I really, truly, couldn't care less. My interest in religion is historical, and also fear of it. "A serial killer may kill 20, but an ideology can kill millions." Religions can split people, and cause them to fight and kill when territory and food are NOT at stake. Thus, it behooves me to know about religions and what their followers are up to. In times past, people like me have been burned and killed (although I'm not on fire for free thinking, and I'm sure I'd have done the things I needed to do not to be pilloried, and just kept my thoughts to myself) by people obsessed with "the spiritual".

 

I do not worship anything. I enjoy things, I respect things, I'm told I'm doing "god's work" because I work with people nearly everyone else shuns and abandons, but I don't worship it. My body and my life is a tool, and my brain is the part of my body that finds using the tools around me interesting and worthwhile. Is this genetic? Is this environmental? Whichever, it sure runs in my family. But, do not take the feeling you have that you label "spiritual" and assign it to non-spiritual people who have a passion for something.

 

I agree with Mortimer Adler's thoughts on the rise of secularism in the age of science. Less of us are spiritual that we think, once the surface is scratched through. And in the background I come from, a truly spiritual person is respected just like the next guy, but not honored or lauded or envied or admired.

 

(here is Adler's thoughts):

"I suggest that the men and women who have given up religion because of the impact on their minds of modern science and philosophy were never truly religious in the first place, but only superstitious. The prevalence and predominance of science in our culture has cured a great many of the superstitious beliefs that constituted their false religiosity. The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious. There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if given half the chance with education, it will reduce the amount that exists. The truths of religion must be compatible with the truths of science and the truths of philosophy. As scientific knowledge advances, and as philosophical analysis improves, religion is progressively purified of the superstitions that accidentally attach themselves to it as parasites. That being so, it is easier in fact to be more truly religious today than ever before, precisely because of the advances that have been made in science and philosophy. That is to say, it is easier for those who will make the effort to think clearly in and about religion, not for those whose addiction to religion is nothing more than a slavish adherence to inherited superstition. Throughout the whole of the past, only a small number of men were ever truly religious. The vast majority who gave their epochs and their societies the appearance of being religious were primarily and essentially superstitious.â€

[radiobrain]

I thought this was appropriate... in a weird way.

 

I posted it all by itself and no one cared to comment.... :confused:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1324&stc=1&d=1253748033

 

 

Charles Darwin commemorative china! This can go next to the Princess Di and Jackie O cups ad saucers! :lol:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I know many people just like you. I don't understand them. As I understand things, the Bible (and the Koran and the like) are "divinely inspired" manuscripts. This means they are written physically by men but the words are put into mens heads by God. (or gods) This means that the Bible is meant to be as perfect a book as can be found on this Earth. No mistakes. If you read it in the Bible it is true. Or as many write it, "True". So when you read:

 

Genesis 1

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

 

 

Why that means exactly that.

 

 

 

Yet in the first sentence on the first page in the first book of the Bible there is a mistake. We know that the earth is about 4.53 billion years old while the universe began at least 9 billion years before the earth did. So unless you're going to allow for 9 billion years of literary license the Bible isn't "True".

 

 

So you must take the Bible as metaphor. Only, this is problematic since each person can take a different meaning to each story, to each paragraph, to each word. The meaning is now in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. And that means that the Bible is no longer a book whose meaning is delivered by a deity but now it is one whose meaning is delivered by YOU.

 

 

 

That is threatening... no matter how you look at it.

 

Frankly, I see the Bible as more as an ancient people's response to the godhead. I definitely do not believe every word of the Bible was inspired but I do think that there are nuggets of inspiration in it so to speak. I rather like what Marcus Borg has to say about it and he expresses it much better than I do. I also must say that I have strong Unitarian Universalist leanings and have an appreciation for other spiritualities as well;).

 

I am confused by what is threatening though? I am sure my ideas might be threatening to some with very specific beliefs, but I do not intend to be so.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Disclaimer: I'm atheist, but I was raised Anglican and understand what Priscilla is talking about. Truth need not be so narrowly defined. Truth need not mean factually or literally correct: it can be found in a phrase or an image, in a metaphor or a parable. Truth can be found in an emotional resonance or intellectual excitement. A larger truth may exist which we can never understand, but only catch glimpses of peripherally, if you will. "Divinely inspired" doesn't necessarily equate to "comes with a decoder ring."

 

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

My friend, you'll have to discuss that with our dear King James whose translations were also supposedly guided by the hand of God.

 

:glare: Need I go on to point out that God created light in 1:4 but didn't create the Sun until 1:16 when he created TWO great lights... seemingly not knowing that one of the "great lights" was just reflecting the light of the other?

I think I addressed this in an earlier post.

 

King James got it so, so very wrong ....

:iagree:There are people that believe in the Bible who don't believe that the King James version is 100% correct. (He didn't write it btw.) It was the best we had for years, but I see no reason to cling to it.

[Spy Car]

:iagree:There are people that believe in the Bible who don't believe that the King James version is 100% correct. (He didn't write it btw.) It was the best we had for years, but I see no reason to cling to it.

 

Well, there is the artist merit and influence the King James version has had on the English language, literature and culture going in its favor. No small thing.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, there is the artist merit and influence the King James version has had on the English language, literature and culture going in its favor. No small thing.

Is that why so many cling to it? We can read from that one and a more accurate modern translation that is easier to understand, can't we?

[PineFarmMom]

Is that why so many cling to it? We can read from that one and a more accurate modern translation that is easier to understand, can't we?

 

I like my side-by-side. It has KJV, Amplified (don't like that one much), NASB, and NIV. It helps to compare.

[Lovedtodeath]

I like my side-by-side. It has KJV, Amplified (don't like that one much), NASB, and NIV. It helps to compare.

I do this too. I use the Easy to Read Version, The Jerusalem Bible, The Interlinear, and The New World Translation. I find that I get more out of scriptures when I haven't heard that exact wording over and over my whole life.

 

I don't own a King James version, but my parents do, and it is in my Kingdom Hall Library, and quoted in some literature that I read. So many people use it, I guess maybe I should use it more often.

[Spy Car]

Is that why so many cling to it? We can read from that one and a more accurate modern translation that is easier to understand, can't we?

 

I'm not sure about the word "cling" but yes, I think many people view the KJV as a master-work of the English language, and therefore read it, but not uncommonly read other versions as well (even side by side).

 

Biblegateway.com is an interesting recourse for comparing some of the major versions if there is a particular charter or verse and one wants to check translations.

 

I do this too. I use the Easy to Read Version, The Jerusalem Bible, The Interlinear, and The New World Translation. I find that I get more out of scriptures when I haven't heard that exact wording over and over my whole life.

 

I don't own a King James version, but my parents do, and it is in my Kingdom Hall Library, and quoted in some literature that I read. So many people use it, I guess maybe I should use it more often.

 

I realize I have a lot of Bibles for a non-religious (non-spiritual person).

 

Three "Jewish" versions: Everett Fox (Torah), Plaut with commentary (Torah), and The JPS Tanakh (full Hebrew Bible in translation).

 

And several "Christian" versions. KJV, NIV, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV), and a New Jerusalem Bible (that I really enjoyed "reading" but got badly water damaged to my great regret, and hasn't yet been replaced.

 

I'll tell you, if you are interested in a KJV, and artist/engraver named Barry Moser did a beautiful edition with original engraving, and (as importantly to me) very artistic typography. And of a good font size on good paper (so reading it is a pleasure, rather than an eye-straining chore). I treasure this one!

 

Bill (who's hard to figure out :D)

[Lovedtodeath]

Actually, there are many Christians who will not even consider a translation other than the KJV.

[Spy Car]

Actually, there are many Christians who will not even consider a translation other than the KJV.

 

On religious grounds?

[Lovedtodeath]

That seems to be the case.

[asta]

Actually, there are many Christians who will not even consider a translation other than the KJV.

 

I've run across this as well.

 

There are many Catholics who will not consider reading any Catholic bible other than the one dedicated to their particular sect (Ignatius for Jesuit, for example).

 

The concept of "literalism" or "clinging" (you're right, Bill - that isn't quite the right word in this case, but it's what I have...) always blows me away simply *because* there are so many bloody versions of the book. Which one IS the true, absolute, WORD?

 

KWIM?

[Spy Car]

I've run across this as well.

 

There are many Catholics who will not consider reading any Catholic bible other than the one dedicated to their particular sect (Ignatius for Jesuit, for example).

 

The concept of "literalism" or "clinging" (you're right, Bill - that isn't quite the right word in this case, but it's what I have...) always blows me away simply *because* there are so many bloody versions of the book. Which one IS the true, absolute, WORD?

 

KWIM?

 

Not to upset anyone, but it's difficult to know. Even if one learns Biblical Hebrew and/or Greek and Aramaic it is difficult to know exactly the meaning ancient cultures placed on words. So even looking at the original (or approved) texts in the original languages involves some "interpretation."

 

Just look at how words in our own language change over a relatively short time.

 

And English interpretations are, we must admit, often guided by and reflective of sectarian differences among branches of the faiths. So it ain't easy. Even when one aims to be "objective."

 

And I'm certainly not the one to judge what is (or isn't) authoritative. I just know which please me on a literary basis and which offer commentary that provide insight into they way one group or another understands the stories.

 

Beyond that? Above my pay-grade :D

 

Bill (who probably shouldn't bring that expression back, but can't help himself)