Philosophy Now Forum

In response to scientific developments and understanding of the last 200 years, has religion been guilty of moving the goalposts or do the central tenets of religion hold firm? Let me provide some examples:

1: Pre-Darwinism, it was widely believed that an ominiscient, omnipotent Creator made the world and everything in it. The now universal acceptance of evolution by natural selection means that religionists were forced into a climb down - that God set evolution in motion in the first place.

2. The religionist view that only human beings can have souls. If evolution by natural selection is accepted by religion (for most of the them it now is), then at which stage of the evolutionary process did God endow the human with a soul? Given that evolution is not a discrete process, but a continuous one, was the endowment of a soul also a progressive and continuous one?

3. Until major geological studies into the age of the Earth were carried out in the 19th Century, Christianity, through the medium of the Bible, set the world's age at around 6,000 years old. This was based on Adam and Eve as being the first humans. Now that we know it is over 3 billion years old, and the Universe at over 13 billion years old, why did it take so long for God to populate the world - with us, the apparent culmination of his work. And why did it take until 2000 years ago to send himself down to tell us that he actually exists in the first place?

4. When life is found on a planet other than Earth (and it will happen), where does that leave religion? Utterly redundant or will the goalposts move once more?

It was all nice and simple until people with their pernicious, enquiring minds went meddling into science.

You are not by any chance picking on religion, are you? As far as I can tell the goal posts are moving for everyone continually, for science, the individual, creation, as well as the academic disciplines and religion. That may be the correct and unbiased way of restating your hypothesis.

A fair question, Aiddon, but not perhaps precisely framed:

Is "religion" guilty of a climb-down? The short and vague answer is "some religions and religious people perhaps are and some aren't." But a short and vague answer is perhaps all that's possible to such a vague question. After all, what is meant by "religion," and how are we to characterize what any particular one of them believes? By the majority? By their most vocal public spokesperson? By their theology? Which of these would you think was definitive?

I think, though, that your question probably involves some form of Christianity, and some form of Evolutionism. If that is the case, then I think your main question is reasonable, and deservesa direct answer.

I would agree that Christianity cannot rationally or theologically accept Evolutionism. But then, there's no clear reason why it should. It has an alternate historical view. To try to blend the two views would indeed be a climb-down, because you are correct in saying that such a move would have serious implications for events like "The Fall" and the origin of personhood or the soul. Which one is true is yet to be settled.

The timing of the plans of God is not a theological worry at all. God can have his reasons for when and where he chooses to do what he does. Nothing there threatens Theism in any way.

The 6,000 year view is not necessary, because of the uncertainty of the length entailed by the "days" of creation. There's no reason to think they have to be 24 hour days, so the argument is unfounded. But you are correct to say that Progressivist Evolutionism cannot be incorporated into Christianity.

I think the question of life on other planets is not relevant. There's nothing in Christianity either affirming or precluding the existence of other life forms and other Divine activities. The Earth is our story; it might not be the only story going. It wouldn't matter either way. And your judgment that we "will" find other life forms is surely a statement of pure belief, not fact. I would suggest that you couldn't possibly know so much as that claim requires.

QMan wrote:You are not by any chance picking on religion, are you? As far as I can tell the goal posts are moving for everyone continually, for science, the individual, creation, as well as the academic disciplines and religion. That may be the correct and unbiased way of restating your hypothesis.

I am 'picking on religion' because this is a philosophy of religion forum. If I wanted to talk about science or academia then I would have asked it in a science or academic forum. I've too little time to pick fights, I ask a question because I am interested in the question.

Besides, yes, in science and society, sure, the goalposts are shifting all the time. I am not so self-righteous not to admit as such. Science is built on a foundation of testing hypotheses - when there is no verifiable evidence for a hypothesis it is scrapped and the process is started again. The goalposts are continually shifting - but the scientific method has not shifted. Religion, in its assertions on humanity, the soul, the universe, have consistently been forced to come in line with prevailing scientific developments. In other words, the substance underpinning the claims that religion have made (outlined in my original post) have suffered significant erosion.

After all, what is meant by "religion," and how are we to characterize what any particular one of them believes? By the majority? By their most vocal public spokesperson? By their theology? Which of these would you think was definitive?

I'm not talking about a few nuts jobs who perpetually refuse to believe in evolution - frankly they are an embarrassment - universally accepted means accepted even by the main organised religions. The Catholic Church, as an example, has broadly accepted the vast bulk of scientific development, cosmologically speaking, back to the very origins of the universe. Yet, it has not satisfactorily explained it core assertions in light of these universally accepted facts.

IC wrote: The timing of the plans of God is not a theological worry at all. God can have his reasons for when and where he chooses to do what he does. Nothing there threatens Theism in any way.

Any clue as to why God's timing is as it is? Or is it one of these mysteries that serve as a useful sidestep by theologians?

IC wrote: I think the question of life on other planets is not relevant. There's nothing in Christianity either affirming or precluding the existence of other life forms and other Divine activities. The Earth is our story; it might not be the only story going. It wouldn't matter either way.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Brought up a Catholic, I seem to remember that we are unique, which is the reason why Jesus was sent to us. Now, if we are not unique, and there are many more like us, in galaxies further away than our imagination, then is it possible that Jesus was dispatched to tell them the same thing also? Either Jesus didn't know what he was talking about (I assume he did because he was God) or he was as unaware of the future possibilities of science as the rest of us were.

IC wrote: And your judgment that we "will" find other life forms is surely a statement of pure belief, not fact. I would suggest that you couldn't possibly know so much as that claim requires.

Interesting, IC, how 'belief' all of a sudden becomes a term of uncertainty?

Well, as I prefer to speak in terms of fact, you only have to switch on the news (an independent, unbiased, apolitical news channel) to see that we are tantalisingly close to finding microbes on Mars. This, you may say, does not prove that 'life' exists or existed on other planets, but if you believe in evolution, as I'm sure you do, then yes, it does in fact prove that life most likely exists on the trillions of other planets, and has the capability to evolve into something as complex as lifeforms on Earth.

In response to scientific developments and understanding of the last 200 years, has religion been guilty of moving the goalposts or do the central tenets of religion hold firm? Let me provide some examples:

Goes to show that Christianity can't win these days no matter what.
Either it is accused of being close-minded and suppressing science.
Or it's guilty of 'moving the goalposts' and not being true to its tenets.

Maybe religion is like a human who learns, grows and adapts over time. And maybe that's because it is a human endeavor built and guided by the humans who form the church.

aiddon wrote: Well, as I prefer to speak in terms of fact, you only have to switch on the news (an independent, unbiased, apolitical news channel) to see that we are tantalisingly close to finding microbes on Mars. This, you may say, does not prove that 'life' exists or existed on other planets, but if you believe in evolution, as I'm sure you do, then yes, it does in fact prove that life most likely exists on the trillions of other planets, and has the capability to evolve into something as complex as lifeforms on Earth.

There we go. Remember the Phoenix Lights incidence where Arizona Governor Fife Symington III saw a huge alien spacecraft?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

phyllo wrote:Maybe religion is like a human who learns, grows and adapts over time.

Apart from the loonies who insist on the literal interpretation of particular texts, I think that is a good analogy. Sometimes religions have to be dragged kicking and screaming, but most manage to grow up a bit, even if only by moving the goalposts.

phyllo wrote:And maybe that's because it is a human endeavor built and guided by the humans who form the church.

The problem with religion is not the belief that there is some god who kicked everything off, who knows? Maybe there was. The problem is the absolutists and their cronies, the conservatives, who believe a god has a particular will which they then persecute others for not obeying. This does at times involve punishing people who hold heretical views which are demonstrably true, as in the case of Galileo. But there are many things that 'omni-benevolent' or 'merciful' gods have a very peculiar intolerance towards.

phyllo wrote:

In response to scientific developments and understanding of the last 200 years, has religion been guilty of moving the goalposts or do the central tenets of religion hold firm? Let me provide some examples:

Goes to show that Christianity can't win these days no matter what.
Either it is accused of being close-minded and suppressing science.
Or it's guilty of 'moving the goalposts' and not being true to its tenets.

Maybe religion is like a human who learns, grows and adapts over time. And maybe that's because it is a human endeavor built and guided by the humans who form the church.

It is non-sensical to throw in phrases like 'Christianity can't win these days.' Everything is open to criticism, including religion. You make out that Christianity is somehow eternally batting off the nay-sayers, the accusors, the suppressors, like some hero of antiquity. Well let me tell you, now you know what it feels like to be have been an atheist for the last two centuries. Believe me, Christianity has had its fair share of the victory pie - and along the way managing the supress one or two human rights just for good measure.

Less 'woe is me' and more argument of your case.

It is non-sensical to throw in phrases like 'Christianity can't win these days.' Everything is open to criticism, including religion. You make out that Christianity is somehow eternally batting off the nay-sayers, the accusors, the suppressors, like some hero of antiquity.

Sure it's open to criticism. And it's a favorite target on philosophy forums, where Christianity gets a much bigger attack than Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. Also a favorite off the internet.
I must say that your approach is unique ... religion is changing. Usually the accusation is that it is not changing. Oh and also that it is the root of all evil.

Believe me, Christianity has had its fair share of the victory pie - and along the way managing the supress one or two human rights just for good measure.

Human rights have been suppressed by all religions and non-religions.

Less 'woe is me' and more argument of your case.

Guess you missed my point. Religion is what humans do. Humans are constantly changing. Therefore, religion is constantly changing. It would be pretty weird if religion did not change.

Guess you missed my point. Religion is what humans do. Humans are constantly changing. Therefore, religion is constantly changing. It would be pretty weird if religion did not change.

Yes, it is changing, but on a more fundamental level it is not changing - it is moving the goalposts. Now, in terms of the major claims that religions has about the nature of being and existence - immutable things in the eyes of most religions, moving the goalposts is a very serious charge - and one that you have not addressed adequately yet.

None of your four examples seem particularly challenging to the 'immutable' tenets of religion. The other posters brought up valid points.
Evolution... so what if God created everything in a few days or billions of years.
The soul ... coincides with evolution of consciousness
Life on other planets ... doesn't alter the uniqueness of life on Earth

If you take a core tenet of Christianity such as 'Love your neighbor as yourself'... how does accepting evolution change it? It doesn't.

aiddon wrote:

Guess you missed
my point. Religion is what humans do. Humans are constantly changing.
Therefore, religion is constantly changing. It would be pretty weird if
religion did not change.

Yes, it is changing, but on a more fundamental level it is not changing -
it is moving the goalposts. Now, in terms of the major claims that
religions has about the nature of being and existence - immutable things
in the eyes of most religions, moving the goalposts is a very serious
charge - and one that you have not addressed adequately yet.

There seems to be some confusion here. Religion does not have to move or do anything. By definition, an omnipotent God exists, therefore, however natural history unfolds, in whatever way shape or form, that is simply the way it is meant to be. In no way can it ever detract one bit from the idea of what religion is about and what God is about.

You are not seriously suggesting that God should not have his own ideas about how to treat his own creation and how to introduce himself into human history regardless of your thinking concerning time scales and the mechanics of it? I guess, in that case, the concept of a God is not clear to you and to the religious person you will simply seem uninformed or be bearing some sort of grudge and biased agenda.

I don't think that an omnipotent God exists...by definition. If that was true then you could create things just by saying a few words.

phyllo wrote:I don't think that an omnipotent God exists...by definition. If that was true then you could create things just by saying a few words.

Quite. By definiton a unicorn is a flying horse with a horn protruding from its head. Therefore a unicorn exists.

Come on QMan, try better than that...

QMan wrote: You are not seriously suggesting that God should not have his own ideas about how to treat his own creation and how to introduce himself into human history regardless of your thinking concerning time scales and the mechanics of it? I guess, in that case, the concept of a God is not clear to you and to the religious person you will simply seem uninformed or be bearing some sort of grudge and biased agenda.

A. Yes, the concept of God is not clear to me - that's why I don't believe in him.
B. You really think God waits in the wings, then picks his moment to reveal himself - but that should remain a mystery to us? The word mystery is used by theists to circumvent trick problems of ontology. If it any way questions the authority or existence of God, then it's a mystery. Nice little get out of jail card.

Why should it remain a mystery? If he did exist, does it not make sense he should reveal himself just when faith in him is waning? Or to restore the goodness in humanity? Because we sure as hell need him now.

I won't be holding my breath though.