Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Islam and evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    I do believe science should be for the benefit of humanity, meaning all humans everywhere, not just those who can afford it, or those that discover it.
    Congratulations! You're a Baha'i!

    Comment


    • #92
      Or maybe what Karl Rahner would have called an Anonymous Baha'i.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        I agree. Shuny seems to actually attribute elements of modernity to the Baha'i Revelation, even if people bringing about modernity were not themselves aware of Baha'i Revelation. He does not use the language of the supernatural, but it appears nonetheless to be some kind of 'magical thinking':
        • robrecht: Are you attributing the evolution of most or large parts of human societies toward a rejection of slavery to Baha'i Revelation? I suspect the growing opposition to slavery was largely independent of any knowledge of the Baha'i faith.

        • Shuny: There is a transformation of humanity and release of knowledge with the advent of a Revelation that influences all humanity without necessarily direct knowledge. I believe there is a strong evidence of such a transformation. The world essentially changed in 1844 with the advent of the Bab/Baha'i Revelation. The scriptures and letters to the rulers of the world are the outward signs of a world transformation that began in 1844. The day after the Bab declared the New Age on Samuel F.B. Morse on May 24, 1844, "What hath God wrought?"

          There is much more that took place that year and after that changed the world where the principles and standards established by the Baha'i have become the standards of the world. More to follow in the next post.

        • robrecht: So do you see these transformations happening without awareness of Revelation as some kind of invisible supernatural effect? How do you explain it?

        • Shuny: I do not try to definitively explain it.

          We are drifting way off topic here and I may start another thread on the topic. I do not like the word 'supernatural,' because I believe the spiritual realms and our physical realms do not function separately as one natural and the other supernatural. There is an intimate interwoven matrix between the physical and spiritual.

          A few comments about the changes that took place in the world beginning around the period centering on 1844.

          (1) The independent belief that prophesy was fulfilled from different religious perspectives in many places in the world that the advent of the Promised One will return and a New Dispensation would begin. (2) The radical changes in science began in the period including the Theory of Evolution. (3) the advent of modern physics and cosmology in scripture. Seven Valleys and Four Valleys "Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun." I doubt that Einstein and other scientists were directly aware of this quotation. At the time it was not accepted by science that the atom was considered the basic unit of matter as described by the Greeks, and the fact that the heart of the atom (nucleus) could be divided with the above consequences. E=mc2

          The old worlds are passing away far more painfully and tragically then a 'crisis of faith,' and a new world is unfolding unlike any in the history of humanity.

          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...of-Faith/page2
        OK citations, but possibly a bit incomplete, nontheless please do not read into my posts with nonsense statements without justification such as '. . . but it appears nonetheless to be some kind of 'magical thinking.' You are sounding like an atheist.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
          Congratulations! You're a Baha'i!
          No, not likely
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Or maybe what Karl Rahner would have called an Anonymous Baha'i.
            Too many theological presuppositions.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              OK citations, but possibly a bit incomplete, nontheless please do not read into my posts with nonsense statements without justification such as '. . . but it appears nonetheless to be some kind of 'magical thinking.' You are sounding like an atheist.
              If you yourself cannot provide rational justification for your views and the connections you are trying to make, you should not be surprised when people try to figure out why you are making such connections. Just because I seek a rational explanation does not make me an atheist. My explanation (that you seem to be engaging in some kind of magical thinking) is not at all nonsensical. People do think that way, as a matter of fact.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                Sigh.
                Double sigh. As with others, a lot of effort, but alas no significant result.

                from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science

                as above

                as above

                As we can see by this quick sampling the Baha'i faith is neither unique or historically first to make the claim that science must be independent and that science and religion should be in harmony.

                Further you are mixing up two distinct uses of the word 'modern'. Modern history is counted from quite early:


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

                While 'modern ' physics means post Newtonian views usually said to begin around the beginning of the 20th century.
                The accusation that the Baha'i came into a modern world is in error. The Baha'i Faith and scripture arose in a pre-modern world to address the problems of the world through Revelation. The body of principles, laws and teaching address the future modern world as you described in the above reference, beginning in the ~late 19th and 20th century.

                I never said there was advancement in science in the Christian and Islamic world throughout history, and individuals that promoted the philosophy of science, but on a Newtonian level. Absolutely nothing in the above references describes an absolute declaration that the advancing knowledge of science must be accepted over ALL scripture, and ALL scripture must be interpreted in the light of this advancing knowledge of science. This is the first declaration of a principle that applies to ALL, absent prior to the Revelation of the Baha'i Faith. The Islamic Revelation did advance a more inclusive view of science and Revelation beginning in the 7th century, and this impacted the world with the first universities, and acceptance of a Newtonian world, but alas, there was no principle that ALL scripture must be understood in the light of the advancing knowledge of science. The confrontation between religion and science in terms of 'modern science' did not arise until the late 19th and 20th centuries, when the science of evolution and modern physics arose in conflict with vey fundamental religious presuppositions of Christianity and Islam. These religions became conflicted and divided, without the guidance.

                You have actually missed an important point, Most believers of religion in the world place the primacy of theological presuppositions first in their lives, without the guidance in Revelation their response to modern knowledge is inconsistent and variable. This results in a widespread rejection, and constraints on science among believers.

                Again, these principles involving science and the evolving body of human knowledge is only one of a unique body of principles that have the purpose of providing guidance for a modern world, beyond the 19th and 20th centuries.

                So far no one has presented any references to an earlier mandate for mandatory universal education and availability to all education for both men and women before this principle was Revealed in the Baha'i Revelation. Yes there were individuals who promoted a greater availability of education, as far as I can determine the earliest declaration or in this case the law of the British Isles in 1870.

                You also must realize that the Baha'i Faith arose in a world without the education and knowledge of the western world

                Despite Robrecht's foolish sarcastic remark about the influence of 'magic,' the Revelation from God influence the world beyond the actual written and oral transmission of knowledge. Actually the belief of Robrecht in the Christian Roman Church also recognizes this transmission of knowledge.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-15-2014, 08:31 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  If you yourself cannot provide rational justification for your views and the connections you are trying to make, you should not be surprised when people try to figure out why you are making such connections. Just because I seek a rational explanation does not make me an atheist. My explanation (that you seem to be engaging in some kind of magical thinking) is not at all nonsensical. People do think that way, as a matter of fact.
                  I have provided rational justification for my views, but it is tough when faced with those that are entrenched in an ancient archaic religious perspective with an agenda only to justify this worldview, and atheists who reject all religious worldviews.

                  The problem is not seeking a rational explanation, since indirect Revelation would not satisfy the atheist perspective as used in my belief and yours. Why use this 'magical thinking' sarcastic atheist verbiage when your belief also believes in indirect influence of Divine Revelation, which you appear to selectively reject concerning the Baha'i view of Revelation.

                  Your demand for a rational explanation is very selective and atheistic.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-15-2014, 08:30 AM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    ...Despite Robrecht's foolish sarcastic remark about the influence of 'magic,' the Revelation from God influence the world beyond the actual written and oral transmission of knowledge. Actually the belief of Robrecht in the Christian Roman Church also recognizes this transmission of knowledge.
                    I was not being sarcastic, and please note the difference between 'magical thinking' and actual magic. I do not believe in the type of transmission of knowledge that you seem to.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I have provided rational justification for my views, but it is tough when faced with those that are entrenched in an ancient archaic religious perspective with an agenda only to justify this worldview, and atheists who reject all religious worldviews.

                      The problem is not seeking a rational explanation, since indirect Revelation would not satisfy the atheist perspective as used in my belief and yours. Why use this 'magical thinking' sarcastic atheist verbiage when your belief also believes in indirect influence of Divine Revelation, which you appear to selectively reject concerning the Baha'i view of Revelation.

                      Your demand for a rational explanation is very selective and atheistic.
                      See above.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        But Baha'i also opposed elements of modern science only to later accept them, just as members of other religions have also done. When OingoBoingo brought this up to you, you refused to discuss it and claimed that his view was "no intellible response nor meaningful dialogue" and that he had a history of being hostile to the Baha'i faith. Do you see the pattern of ad hominem argumentation?
                        The problem of a lack of a "intellible response nor meaningful dialogue" is most definitely OingoBoingo and your problem. I discussed it and described the Baha'i view in detail and both OingoBoingo choose to ignore it. To put is simple as repeated many times.

                        The basic fundamental principle of the Baha'i Faith from the very beginning is ALL scripture including that of the Baha'i Faith must be understood in the light of the advancing and evolving knowledge of science. Commentary in Baha'i scripture concerning the scientific nature of our physical existence is not considered infallible. I gave references to this and they were ignored. The fundamental principle of the evolving body of knowledge involving guidance and change happens is part of the nature of the Baha'i Faith. You may reject this, ok, but I have given this explanation many, many times.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-15-2014, 08:52 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          The problem of a lack of a "intellible response nor meaningful dialogue" is most definitely OingoBoingo and your problem. I discussed it and described the Baha'i view in detail and both OingoBoingo [and you] choose to ignore it. To put is [?] simple as repeated many times.

                          The basic fundamental principle of the Baha'i Faith from the very beginning is ALL scripture including that of the Baha'i Faith must be understood in the light of the advancing and evolving knowledge of science. Commentary in Baha'i scripture concerning the scientific nature of our physical existence is not considered [infallible or scripture.] You may reject this, ok, but I have given this explanation.
                          I have no difficulty whatsoever with this explanation. I do object, however, to the ad hominem argumentation and your apparent refusal to apply critical thinking consistently to your own beliefs in the same way that you do to the beliefs of others.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            See above.
                            Done see above.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              I have no difficulty whatsoever with this explanation. I do object, however, to the ad hominem argumentation and your apparent refusal to apply critical thinking consistently to your own beliefs in the same way that you do to the beliefs of others.
                              Apparently you do have difficulty with this explanation, because of the response and nature of you combative posts, and atheistic references to 'magical thinking,' and OingoBoingo quote mining religious agenda. At best this is inconsistent.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-15-2014, 09:03 AM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Apparently you do have difficulty with this explanation, because of the response and nature of you combative posts, and atheistic references to 'magical thinking.' At best this is inconsistent.
                                No, no difficulty at all. I completely accept that the basic fundamental principle of the Baha'i Faith from the very beginning is ALL scripture including that of the Baha'i Faith must be understood in the light of the advancing and evolving knowledge of science. I do not object to that principle with respect to my own faith or to yours. But, I do try to get you to apply that principle a little more consistently with respect to your beliefs. I'm sorry that you feel I am being combative, but I am not, not toward you personally nor toward the Baha'i faith or philosophy. You need not see the consistent application of rational thought as combative or atheistic. In my faith, I embrace rational thought completely. I am not an atheist, 'though neither am I opposed to atheism as I consider it also to be a noble and profound approach to life.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X