Poll

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

Yes
58 (15.7%)
No
144 (39%)
both metaphorically and literally
167 (45.3%)

Total Members Voted: 369

Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 452633 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,780
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5805 on: June 06, 2015, 11:16:18 AM »
There are many disagreements about how Science should be done, what methods used, its purpose, what conclusions we can draw, what conclusions we should draw, whether we can ever be certain of something, what its limits are or should be, how and to what extent it interacts and informs other areas of thought/investigation, how open the theory and processes are to modification, etc.

wiki gives an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

a book suggested by a college science professor who used to post here:

What Is This Thing Called Science?, by Alan F. Chalmers

and I found this book to be a good companion text (as it was intended to be):

Science And Its Fabrication, by Alan Chalmers
« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 11:19:08 AM by Justin Kissel »
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫
The original bleeding heart ♫
That is what thou art ♫
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,037
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5806 on: June 06, 2015, 02:57:21 PM »
I take a nuance on this philosophy of science.  We assume a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon.  We cannot measure "consistency". To atheists, consistency is merely the material laws of science which can be mathematically expressed.  For me, is the language and glory of God.  For one to even speak of philosophy of anything proves to us we study the material world at a "supra-material" level, for lack of a better word.  At that point, this is when the spiritual becomes obvious to me.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 02:57:52 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline nothing

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 691
  • College kids ain't ****
  • Jurisdiction: Jornada del Muerto
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5807 on: June 09, 2015, 08:32:43 AM »
There are many disagreements about how Science should be done, what methods used, its purpose, what conclusions we can draw, what conclusions we should draw, whether we can ever be certain of something, what its limits are or should be, how and to what extent it interacts and informs other areas of thought/investigation, how open the theory and processes are to modification, etc.

Most of the questions you're asking aren't scientific questions, but epistemology, or the philosophy of science (as you cited), or the political control of science. They're all valid questions. They just can't be answered by science.

Even the ones that seem to pertain to the profession of science are not really scientific questions, but something like best practices, or other rules professionals in a domain might impose upon themselves for all sorts of reasons (uniformity, making review easier, comes to mind).

As to my perspective, the validity and applicability of methodological naturals cannot be questioned by science because it is science.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 08:35:45 AM by nothing »
This is born alone die alone, so my dialogue's dastardly
Life's a tragedy generator operating at max capacity

“I’ve lived to bury my desires,
And see my dreams corrode with rust;
Now all that’s left are fruitless fires
That burn my empty heart to dust.”
― Alexander Pushkin

Offline ilyazhito

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 960
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5808 on: June 09, 2015, 05:27:28 PM »
About the poll at the beginning, how is it possible to believe in the Old Testament both metaphorically and literally. It seems that both beliefs exclude each other, but it might also depend on how one defines "days". So how does that work?

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,780
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5809 on: June 09, 2015, 06:33:25 PM »
About the poll at the beginning, how is it possible to believe in the Old Testament both metaphorically and literally. It seems that both beliefs exclude each other, but it might also depend on how one defines "days". So how does that work?

I have yet to come across a Father who didn't take it both 'metaphorically' and 'literally' (if we are going to combine a dozen different interpretive approaches or more down into two options), but then I am assuming that 'the account of Genesis' means the first 3-4 chapters, and not any particular verse or word that can be isolated and haggled over in an attempt to define. To use an example I've mentioned before--the 'garments of skin.' They could be literal clothes to cover them since they now had changing ideas about certain parts on the other person; they could be literal coverings (skin) to prepare them for a life of hardship/problems they wouldn't have faced in Eden; they could be a symbol of things that had come upon humanity when they were expelled from Eden (pooping, sex, death, drugs, rock n roll): the good, the bad, or the good and bad; it could be taken as foreshadowing the coming of Christ ("in the flesh"); and so on. And most of the literal interpretations have non-literal levels of communication/insight, and vice versa.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 06:34:26 PM by Justin Kissel »
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫
The original bleeding heart ♫
That is what thou art ♫
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5810 on: Yesterday at 06:19:34 PM »
We assume a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon.
That's biggest problem of today's scientism. In real science one cannot assume anything. Today's scientism takes assumption of "everything should be explained within materialistic framework" and proclaims this assumption for axiom. Now, within this context if you encounter an evidence (or a phenomenon or whatever) that absolutely cannot be explained within materialistic framework then you don't have much choices. You can either totally deny existence of this phenomenon that are real (examples of which are multiple in today's scientism) or give most ridiculous explanation based on materialism (examples of which are also many). This materialistic restrictions on our world is not going to lead any further. When we assume that everything can be explained by materialism it's just an assumption. Thus every true scientist should ask himself questions: Is my materialistic assumption true? Can i prove it that it is true? Did I prove it? If i did not prove it, then how true that  science i have learned could be? The reality is we have not proven materialistic worldwide to be true. This approach is absolutely restrictive and can't create real science.

Same is true for assuming consistency among all material phenomenon. Did we prove it? What if this assumption is false?

We have studied the world and all we find is wonders. Any normal logic dictates us that if we want to study this amazing world we have to be open to any explanation that would lead us to even more wonders. If materialistic explanation was enough it would have been accepted. But not only are these materialistic explanations not enough but also they many times are silly and we clearly need something beyond materialism. In this i see atheism as a worst religion who has put up this dogma of "nothing beyond materialism exists" and has caught millions of minds. Funny thing is this same conscious mind who accepts this dogma can't explain its own consciousness (something most real for every conscious mind), can't explain why it is conscious of its own existence or why it is conscious of its own feelings and so on. It is very clear that our consciousness is not materialistic and can't be.

All these bad scientism is characteristic feature of one of the theories of today's sientism called "Neo-Darwinism".

Offline nothing

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 691
  • College kids ain't ****
  • Jurisdiction: Jornada del Muerto
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5811 on: Yesterday at 06:37:17 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again. I'll get back to you later tonight if I can to sharpen your points. I think we fundamentally agree, but how we get there is where differ.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 06:37:45 PM by nothing »
This is born alone die alone, so my dialogue's dastardly
Life's a tragedy generator operating at max capacity

“I’ve lived to bury my desires,
And see my dreams corrode with rust;
Now all that’s left are fruitless fires
That burn my empty heart to dust.”
― Alexander Pushkin

Offline seekeroftruth777

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
  • O Most Holy Theotokos save us!
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH but my heart belongs to the JP
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5812 on: Yesterday at 06:37:47 PM »
Just a quick question why would Orthodoxy conform their theology, Christology, Biblical views, etc. to the Scientific worldview? sorry but Modernism, Post Modernism, Moral Relativism Darwinism, Futurism, Atheism, Malthuism, Rationalism (and it flip sided twin brother Fundamentalism), Evolution, Survival of the fittest, Dialectic Materialism, Racial Eugenics and everything else related to Scientific Ideas and consensus that came out of the middle ages to the Enlightenment then to the counterculture up to even today has had a negative effect on the Western Churches just look the Anglicans/Episcopalians (how that Reason working out), the Lutherans, The Catholic Church, The Methodists, etc. do we want to go down that same road as the Western Churches? however I chose option #3 every Orthodox church I ever attended made it clear that Scripture a mixture or allegory, Literalism, Symbolism, History, and Metaphors and that it is the Church and not our own private interpretations that interprets scripture.
pray for the persecuted Christians in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Occupied Palestine, Nigeria, Pakistan, Eriteria & Kosovo.

Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have Mercy on me a Sinner!

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5813 on: Yesterday at 08:11:03 PM »
The biblical doctrine (see Psalm 93:1, 96:10) of geocentrism that was promulgated the RCC is clearly contradicted by empirical reality, and now the RCC has apologized for its persecution of Galileo, and it even has an astronomical laboratory.  Evolution, or more specifically common descent, is a similar instance of a conflict between the "Teachings of the Church" and reality.
Strictly speaking any motion is relative. Consequently saying that geocentrism is false statement of reality and heliocentrism is true is wrong in itself.

Quote
Evolution, or more specifically common descent, is a similar instance of a conflict between the "Teachings of the Church" and reality.
You have given a definition of scientific method from American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. Base on this definition of science how is "Evolution, or more specifically common descent" reality? And what you mean in evolution and common descent?

Quote
The RCC and the mainline Protestants have accepted common descent as true, and I think that this is more productive than further defiance in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
What RRC says does not matter. RRC is not a scientific entity. Neither is it Church of Christ but Church of evil. I'm talking about RRC itself and not ordinary Christians who are blinded by those clergy. At any rate, since you state there's overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution i doubt you understand Neo-Darwinism.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,780
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5814 on: Yesterday at 08:31:48 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again. I'll get back to you later tonight if I can to sharpen your points. I think we fundamentally agree, but how we get there is where differ.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.

I'm not sure I understand why you place such importance on separating philosophy and science, and calling attention to their separation. No science could be done without a thousand bricks of philosophy acting as a foundation. Perhaps half these bricks are beliefs and assumptions so common that we don't even think about them as philosophical, we just take them for granted without thinking of them at all. That science should work on curing cancer. Why? What if you believe as Christian scientists do? The overwhelming majority hold to a very different belief about such matters though, so that position is simply ushered right in and past the line and bouncer. Another is that we should try to test and confirm data. Why? For verification? Yet as journal articles multiply we end up with situations where there are a bazillion claims being made, and on a great many of them you can find conflicting data, competing hypotheses/ideas, and contradictory conclusions. So why not wait until we reach critical masses and then do experiments? As opposed to the 'publish or perish' system, where getting into some graduate programs takes into account if and how much you've published, getting tenure often makes a good publishing history a requirement, and so on? It's a philosophical position. The who do science and those who set the course of it prefer one method over all the other options. They prefer to let a bazillion articles be published in ten thousand journals, half of which might be completely fraud, and a large portion of the other half being largely useless or even harmful. Of course it's hard to change now--mid stream--but it's still a philosophical brick.

There are others that are perhaps still controversial among a larger group. Once the group reaches 'big enough to lobby the government, or bug us' status they usually can get some kind of acknowledgement. Animal rights, for example. Is it right to experiment on animals? Mammals? Rats vs. fish vs. cockroaches vs. chimpanzees? We can't use chimpanzees to test out new drugs to be used in death penalty cases? Why not? Well can we still kill single-celled organisms? Where is the line drawn, and why? Or another line of questioning: is it ok to do experiments that are not seriously harmful (death or vegetablizing), but not ones that will effectively end the life? Is it ok to do dangerous experiments on humans? If sometimes, when? Only if they are terminal? As long as they give their consent? Never, if it has a more than 10% chance of killing them? Who decides, and how? Is there a non-philosophical, scientific way to figure this stuff out? One of the common criticisms of sola scripture is that there is not table of contents included by God from the start. Well, is there a list of oks and not oks from the start with science? Does some non-philosophical experiment demonstrate why cadavers are now allowed to be used for all manner of scientific investigation, including (fittingly but morbidly) observations about the effects of weather patterns, wild animal involvement, and the like on dead human bodies, such as how fast they decompose in this or that condition.

Why spend billions on going to space? Searching for this and that? What direction? Why talk of humans going to Mars? What are the arguments between scientists about? Specifically the ones that are competing for the grants that make most of the experimenting feasible? There are arguments about which would yield the most data, which would give the most accurate results, and so on. But the great majority of them are straight up philosophy. Let's focus on mining random objects in the solar system because there's money in them there thingers. No, we should focus on learning how to keep one of them from slamming into earth and destroying the planet; in fact, we should be doing this urgently. Nah, the chances of that happening are miniscule; it is my opinion that the chances are so small that we should focus on other, more productive things instead, like how to protect astronauts from the negative effects of being in space. What? Humans shouldn't even be in space! And so on and so on, in just that one area.

Before, during and after science does science, it must also do philosophy. Or, scientists must know and do philosophy as a part of the scientific method, and it's in many cases more integral and foundational than the would-be factual, naturalistic, non-philosophical stuff. I don't know what you'll think of this, or if I have completely misunderstood your point. Anyway, I hope I didn't write this for nothing. Oh wait...   Har har, couldn't resist.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 08:33:23 PM by Justin Kissel »
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫
The original bleeding heart ♫
That is what thou art ♫
Jesus ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5815 on: Yesterday at 09:13:17 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again.
Thank you.

Quote
More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.
It's all right to assume natural causes for certain phenomena and work within this framework. But we have to understand that such assumption is very limited and can only lead to limited discoveries. If we want to assume this we have to know that many other questions will be unanswered and materialistic science should not be involved to research such questions. Materialistic theories of origin of universe, origin of life and its diversity and so on are impossible to come up with. In such cases science should restrict its search only to very limited area of reality.

Quote
The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.
I do not think that those questions are philosophical alone and does not pertain to science. If science is about the search of truth in reality then to whatever this search leads we should accept it. Let's assume that we are investigating a phenomenon which in no way can be explained by naturalistic explanation. What do we do next? Do we say, this phenomenon was an illusion? Do we say, let's wait for centuries and materialistic explanation will spring into existence? Or do we dispose our false assumption and try to go beyond it?

Offline nothing

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 691
  • College kids ain't ****
  • Jurisdiction: Jornada del Muerto
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5816 on: Yesterday at 09:48:12 PM »
@Ativan

Science isn't in search of truth and has nothing to say about it. So you have a confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, which the later makes a truth claim that only natural causes exist which you and I both would reject, but I suspect for different reasons.

You misconstrue what I meant about the required assumption of scientists. Of course it's limited, that's the point. Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions. That's it. Science isn't getting closer to some sort of "ultimate reality" here and really has no intention to do so.

So I think you have a misunderstanding between what science does and philosophy. The two should not be mixed, and when it does it becomes both bad science and bad philosophy.

EDIT: Just saw Justin's lengthy post, OK give me some time for a proper response.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 09:56:06 PM by nothing »
This is born alone die alone, so my dialogue's dastardly
Life's a tragedy generator operating at max capacity

“I’ve lived to bury my desires,
And see my dreams corrode with rust;
Now all that’s left are fruitless fires
That burn my empty heart to dust.”
― Alexander Pushkin

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5817 on: Yesterday at 11:21:01 PM »
@Ativan

Science isn't in search of truth and has nothing to say about it...

Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions. That's it. Science isn't getting closer to some sort of "ultimate reality" here and really has no intention to do so.
Basically, you are saying it does not matter what theories we have to explain observable phenomena as long as these theories makes useful predictions. Let's take very concrete example. I want to ask a question how life came into existence and what caused diversity of life. Are these questions scientific ones? If they are not then Neo-Darwinism is not science since it tries to answer questions beyond science. So, we have to assume that these questions are scientific ones since we have (or at least scientists claim they do) theories about it. Today's theory which claims to have answers to these questions is Neo-Darwinian theory. This theory claims that all life form arouse from common ancestor by random mutations and natural selection. Within the context what you have just said it does not really matter if diversity of life is caused by random mutations and natural selection as long as Neo-Darwinism makes useful predictions, am i right?

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,037
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5818 on: Yesterday at 11:49:38 PM »
Tbh...the posts are way too long to care anymore lol

I think I explained enough in this thread my reasons.  I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency. 
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Protostrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,979
  • All who love ZZ, honour ZZ!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5819 on: Yesterday at 11:54:54 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again.

;)
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

New thread topic.  Rate the sexual attractiveness of members of OC.net on a scale of 1-10.

Mor Ephrem: 11/10

Online TheTrisagion

  • The cat is back and its better than ever!
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,204
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5820 on: Today at 08:44:02 AM »
Tbh...the posts are way too long to care anymore lol

I think I explained enough in this thread my reasons.  I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.
Don't worry, mina, I'm in the same camp you are. Except I am a Chalcedonian scientism follower.  :P
Praise to be kelly the all-benificent for granting me permission to change my sig line.

Obligatory: "It's a mystery! Ask your priest/spiritual father. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. Marital fasting."