The contempt, anger and personal attacks on this woman are intriguing to me. Seems to me step one in a discussion like this is to lay out our biases and emotional triggers, so as to see how they may impact our interactions with the information and arguments at hand. Personal attacks are usually the last tactic of the one who arrived at the discussion either unprepared or uninterested in doing the work of rigorous dialogue.
She's intelligent, as is everyone involved in this series. But as to whether she's rational; and as to whether she's making good points...I don't think she is. I've just watched the video, and already almost everything she said has vanished from my memory. I can't even remember a point she made, never mind a good one.
@@multismashify I said "as to whether she's making good points". I don't know about you but for me a pretty low bar for whether someone is making any interesting or worthwhile points is if I can remember a single thing they've said after they say it.
Life is about finding your niche in the system and making the most of it. All living systems attempt to maximize fitness regardless of what is true. Life can only exist when it is in the stream of energy flow. It takes a lot of energy for life to have a chance by creating islands of order in this vast sea of energy.
Just to point out, selfishness is not bad. Improper selfishness is what is bad. The self will always be there in everything you do. Selfishness is one of the most dominant driving emotions in animals.
when people associate selfishness with evolution it seems clear that they never read the book that that misrepresentation originated from. the genes are selfish not the individual organisms. and the genes being selfish actually can lead to all turistic behaviors in animals
schel sullivan I think you are giving far to much separation between genes and organisms. Genes influence organisms and altruism is most often than not a mechanism to sort out rational selfishness.
Excellent presentation. For those seeking more fundamental info on this subject and Dr. Coakley's position, see the article "God and Evolution: A New Solution" from Harvard Divinity School bulletin. Also, the research proposal for the "Evolution and Theology of Cooperation" project and the papers of Dr. Martin Nowak (Harvard) are helpful.
That is exactly the idea I have heard recently. Speaking for myself, I feel this notion that God sustains creation continuously, is very intriguing, but it is just an inkling so far. Should God abandon creation, even momentarily, it would cease to exist. It seems correct. I can already hear the god of the gaps retort, but that misses her statements completely. She is giving you metaphysical underpinnings, not claiming that our lack of scientific understanding requires God to fill in this unknown part in the middle. That thinking is what she opposed in the video. Food for thought & this will need some chewing.
Far from being something new, this is called the Unmoved mover argument which dates back to Aristotle. Which makes it older than Christianity. Of Course Aristotle came up with the idea precisely because his understanding of physics was wrong, in particular the observation idea of conservation of Energy did not enter his understanding, because to be frank it really is a counter intuitive idea.
@@KonradZielinski That is a misunderstanding of her argument & Aristotle's unmoved mover. If we are talking sustaining existance, that isn't a starting point. Deists could claim an unmoved mover & her argument doesn't fit that. I might have misunderstood your point though. Could you cite the argument in proper form. That might help. As to physics, let me stop you right there. Aristotle's philosophy isn't science. If you want to say your knowledge on physics doesn't fit his, that is fine. Aristotle had no scientific knowledge. Aristotle didn't know physics & then inserted his prime mover in a gap of knowledge in physics. So, I think you maybe didn't mean that or didn't think it through. Either way, that's just false on a number of axis. Let's look at the prime mover though. *Why is this posited?* You couldn't logically have an infinite regression of causes. That is where this comes from. A thought experiment. It is like a bottomless pit. How much dirt would it take to fill the pit & how long? Each cause I throw down the pit has not effected the depth of the pit. It isn't more or less filled. This is true of millions of causes also, or a billion! How could I arrive at any depth in the pit? Only if I count from the surface, since that has a defined depth of 0. That starting point is the point that is needed. This is prime. *Logically there must be a base cause in the sequence.* Back to our existance. Logically there must be a starting point. This isn't a guess, it is necessary. A prime mover must exist. 0∆infinity=present moment on a continuum into an Infinite future with a starting point.
@Mackdmara My phillosophy classes where many years ago so giving you specific sources is not going to happen. That said you are confusing unmoved mover with first cause. And Aristotle did write about physics. Hell he coined the term metaphysics, it was the chapter in his book that came before the chapter on physics. But in actually reading what he wrote it is clear that his metaphysics was based on how he viewed physics. He said all change (movement) used energy. Also that the energy gets used up. Change can only happen while energy is being supplied to something. Really if you set aside your modern education this makes intuitive sense when you look at how humans and animals move. And at how fire burns etc. So in order for things to keep changing the energy has to come from somewhere, the unmoved mover who keeps the universe moving.
@@KonradZielinski Philosophy isn't science. Aristotle's Philosophy isn't science. You are taking a term used by a philosopher in ancient times & then saying it is synonymous with our current definition. No, it isn't. Atom also came from ancient philosophy, but it isn't what you think of as an atom in science. Your analysis fits that kind of misunderstanding, sorry.
@@mackdmara Except that for the Ancient Greeks it was the same thing, studying the natural world was part of what a philosopher did : plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ . Its a grounding which appears to be missing in some branches of modern philosophy.
She side stepped the question, yes evolution isn't purely selfishness and harm it also can involve cooperation but that still doesn't answer the question of suffering with an all loving, all powerful being in charge. For living things in existence it is usual that most or the majority of that existence is suffering whether it be mental, emotional or physical, it is part and parcel of life and evolution as far as we know. Why would a God of that described allow that? Is Heaven and the promise of bliss after death the answer? Do all living things go to Heaven and is it worth going through one second of hell for it and if heaven and an after life are the answer what is the evidence (apart from scripture) of it's existence? Those are the questions I would have asked her. A no God scenario makes much more sense in light of these questions.
This is complete BS regarding selfishness - cooperative behavior evolves because of purely selfish factors, it is very superficial to go from "oh, cooperativity is hot in evolutionary theory at the moment" to "therefore the selfish view of evolution is wrong". That's not how it works -- at the fundamental level, i.e. genes, it is all about "selfishness", always has been, always will be, it's just that the goal of selfish fitness maximization is better served by cooperation in some cases.
GM35964 I was actually embarassed by the poverty of critical thinking on display here - you'll note that the interviewer brought up the topic of animal suffering in the natural world (among other issues); the interviewee's nebulous references to selfishness versus altruism do nothing to address that. I don't know of any predator species that would fail to feed on a sick baby animal from a prey species out of the goodness of its heart, no matter how prone to 'unselfish' behaviour within its own population / genetic line it might be. Moreover the leap from 'the mathematical parameters for evolution favour limited altruism' to a system of theology strains credibility to say the least. Also, I balk at the statement that a species which fails to behave unselfishly declines in the long term. It seems to me that there are plenty of long-lasting animals (oviparous sharks come to mind, other examples may be better) that behave in a completely 'selfish' manner and have thrived for millions of years.
There is no rational sense in which the term/quality selfishness can be applied to individual genes. Your own instinctive use of scare quotes around the term betrays an awareness of this.
GM35964 buffalo, elephants have demonstrated protecting other species from predators such as lions, wild dogs etc. this is all unselfish acts that are well documented throughout nature. The more we study the more we learn. It is not about survival of the fittest that I was brainwashed to believe in my public school as a teenager. Science is changing which is what it is designed to do.
The very fact you use the phrase "in some cases" is a bit of a slip on your part. This is exactly the issue with your statement that you want to separate the gene from the organism. But it simply is not the case. And if cases are "sometimes" cooperative that merely suggests rational selfishness to sustain existence. Thus, proving her point.
I agree DManCAWMaster. However, having read some of the other posts here I am saddened by some of the hostility - describing her argument as BS and poop are NOT helpful. I am very much an agnostic when it comes to God's existence but I try to put any prejudices I might to one side and actually listen to what people have to say. We are all entitled to our opinions but, it seems to me, that there too many posts here which reflect personal prejudices. I think what she has to say is interesting, very rational and measured. In no way is she saying that the theological perspective is the 'truth' but is suggesting it could be one way of addressing some of the questions raised.
The other points I forgot to make was this video does not mention all of her ideas in relation to evolution and cooperative behaviour - see bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/articles/springsummer2007/god-and-evolution-new-solution
This view still does not account for the fact that it was humanity's actions that brought death into the world. If one does accept the Bible, and the need for salvation via one man, Jesus, you are also accepting that death entered the world through one man, Adam. If evolution is true, death is a natural and "good" part of the world, as through it, we have life. Why would Jesus need to defeat death if death was good?
Why can't God just speak from the skies and set everybody straight for the record? Why is it so hard for God to communicate with his creation? if God is really here we shouldn't have to jump through all these hoops to somehow figure out a way that he could be here. if God is really here it should be plain as day as the car your driveway for the tree in your backyard and he shouldn't be afraid to make himself known rather than all this confusion that we have right now of all the different religions, and everyone feels that their religion is the correct one and everybody else is wrong but yet everybody is guided by the holy Spirit
Mush! This is the "god of the gaps" theory reworked. She is suggesting we look for a gap and then shoehorn god into the discussion because it "may" serve some explanatory philosophical function. But that is not how proper science functions.
rumidude Not in the slightest, her questions and ideas were far more concrete than that. It is not about shoehorning but rearticulating. The way you are interpretating her statements is the exact way of thinking she is criticizing in this video.
There are various degrees of selfishness and when you compare it between evolution and theology they are quite different. In theology, human beings are expected to be selfless at all times where in evolution it is only for survival. In addition, meekness and humility are incompatible with evolution whereas it is elevated in theology.
Aerex12 I wouldn't say that. "Loving your neighbor as yourself" and "loving your neighbor instead of yourself" are two completely different things. If you lack self-love, then the Golden Rule does not oblige you to love others. Christian morality is compatible with rational egoism.
I've always believed that this world was a well-run, tightly-run Training Academy...GOD could remain distant in one sense, but still set up a Hierarchal System to run the day to day. (Ex. the President makes the overall calls, but who greets the immigrants as they enter the country?...a subset of authorities, say Immigration Officers..Port Authority..passed off to Social Services..etc?) This idea is in harmony with what the Mystics taught, and what almost all the Near Death Experiencers claim they ran into. Something to consider.
Right off the bat, I disagree with her claim that there is any logical sense in the "separate magesterium" claim that god does not fall into the category of another large item that exists because in the same sentence she says god is the reason that anyTHING at all exists. The thrust of her whole argument is that her god is special so there!
John Morris The "non-overlapping magisteria" theory introduced by Stephen Jay Gould certainly has problems, but considering the majority of Christian theologians, stretching back nearly 2000 years, have recognized that the creation accounts in the Book of Genesis were never meant to be read in a straightforwardly literal sense as (pre)historical narrative. Their content is theological, not scientific, despite what modern fundamentalists feel they must believe.
God did not created Evil ,Satan and devil created evil On the world 🌍 God he hide from all evil He do evil sometimes but he not evil all the time like Satan his between God power vs Satan power
She is wrong about the whole selfishness thing. Just simply completely wrong. Stanford has uploaded a whole series of lectures of high quality that explains this.
"the most recent developments in evolutionary biology' to which she refers are at least fifty years old. Really, the Closer To Truth videos that involve theologians are best viewed as lessons in how not to think. This is eight minutes of nothing - windy talk about God "ontologically undergirding reality"* and inaccurate, strawmandering references to very specific, well-defined ideas from evo biology. *Anyone who can explain what this is meant to mean, and, more importantly, _how it helps explain anything_, gets a gold star.
While I don't disagree with your points made about her misuse of some aspects of evolutionary theory, I think I understood what she meant with that phrase you quoted, so maybe I can try to help illuminate the point. It seemed that she was offering a sort of pantheistic idea, similar to the concept of God in some sects of Hinduism or Buddhism (I'm not an expert on these religions, so someone please correct me if this analogy is incorrect). This idea, in it's weakest sense, would mean that God is a necessity for the ongoing existence of the universe, the laws/processes of nature, or some other necessary component for life (in this context). In it's strongest sense, it would mean that reality is God. Thus, she seems to either be making the claim that the processes of evolution are 1) God guided at every step (not a rare viewpoint) or 2) the embodiment of some part of God "himself" (a more unconventional stance, especially in Christian circles). This is just my interpretation, and with her vague and overly complex language, it's about as good as I can do. Hopefully, that explanation helped a bit, or at least I hope it didn't confuse you more. This isn't to say I hold to any of these claims myself, and there are still many, many issues that arise with this system of thought. But, to me at least, it's an interesting idea to consider and perhaps play around with a bit.
The Sprawl I take the statement to mean what all classical theists maintain: all non-divine reality is metaphysically contingent upon the necessary reality of God.
@@ElasticGiraffe What does that even mean? _How_ is all reality contingent upon God? And why is God not him/her/itself contingent? And if you say 'well, god is a necessary truth', why not get rid of god and just say reality is the necessary truth, which means there's a simpler explanatory chain? Ie. instead of God>Reality>The universe, we just have Reality>The universe? How you theists can possibly be satisfied with the stuff that theologians come out with I will never know.
Why do the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism) have problem with Evolution and not with other scietific theories? Simply because God said, He created Man somewhere outside of Earth and later sent him to it. There is no way for us to reconcile with it. However, God did not leave us without any sound argument against any kind of falsehood. Some of them are below: 1. where did the 1st complex cell that began the Evolution come from? Yes, it's complex because it said to have done complex functions like replicating itself... why would it divide itself? that detail will make it an essay instead of a comment 2. Why male and female that could reproduce? what is the chance of evolving into exactly opposite partners? why are they attractive to each other? Why only 2? Why not many? Why reproduction? All of this by chance? 3. Paleontology, the only supposed evidence for evolution, shows thausands of fossils that were preserved millions of years ago that are exaclty same as today's speicies. Harun Yahya and Don Patton have done good job exposing this false theory.
I dont think religions have a problem with evolution. I just think they need more time to figure out how to change their doctrines to better fit the new paradigm. Religions evolve and change over time just as science has over the centuries. Science on the other hand changes as new discoveries are made, while religions play catch up.
"What's the relationship, if there is a relationship, between God and evolution?" There is no such relationship until there is objective, rational empirical evidence for a "God". Until now: zillions of years NOTHING! Discussion useless !!!
@@GeoCoppens if you believe in God as a separate complete unchanging entity, i.e., Jesus, Allah ..etc, this does not make sense. But God as a concept invented by humans, yes.
Her reasoning is to serve you poop on a dish and convince you with distracted phrases totally unrelated that you should eat it because you will like it if you just believe it's chocolate.
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
The contempt, anger and personal attacks on this woman are intriguing to me. Seems to me step one in a discussion like this is to lay out our biases and emotional triggers, so as to see how they may impact our interactions with the information and arguments at hand. Personal attacks are usually the last tactic of the one who arrived at the discussion either unprepared or uninterested in doing the work of rigorous dialogue.
I've been deep in the apologetics game for a long time and have never heard of this woman. Why not?! What a brilliant mind!
She's not an apologist, really. She is primarily a specialist in Early Christian theology.
Amazing. Never heard of the debate in this way! Love how she points out levels to fill up before jumping straight from science to theology.
Very interesting. I feel she is very rational and makes good points
She's intelligent, as is everyone involved in this series. But as to whether she's rational; and as to whether she's making good points...I don't think she is.
I've just watched the video, and already almost everything she said has vanished from my memory. I can't even remember a point she made, never mind a good one.
Consciousness doesn't exist. So you didn't hear anything she said.
The Sprawl So you have an inability to grasp a higher plane of thought perhaps?
@@thesprawl2361 How is your inability to remember something a measure of how rational said thing is?
@@multismashify I said "as to whether she's making good points". I don't know about you but for me a pretty low bar for whether someone is making any interesting or worthwhile points is if I can remember a single thing they've said after they say it.
such eloquence doubled up with an exquisite accent...thank you.
Life is about finding your niche in the system and making the most of it. All living systems attempt to maximize fitness regardless of what is true.
Life can only exist when it is in the stream of energy flow. It takes a lot of energy for life to have a chance by creating islands of order in this vast sea of energy.
Just to point out, selfishness is not bad. Improper selfishness is what is bad. The self will always be there in everything you do. Selfishness is one of the most dominant driving emotions in animals.
What if evolution is the way God creates?
Mic Drop.
when people associate selfishness with evolution it seems clear that they never read the book that that misrepresentation originated from. the genes are selfish not the individual organisms. and the genes being selfish actually can lead to all turistic behaviors in animals
schel sullivan I think you are giving far to much separation between genes and organisms. Genes influence organisms and altruism is most often than not a mechanism to sort out rational selfishness.
Excellent presentation. For those seeking more fundamental info on this subject and Dr. Coakley's position, see the article "God and Evolution: A New Solution" from Harvard Divinity School bulletin. Also, the research proposal for the "Evolution and Theology of Cooperation" project and the papers of Dr. Martin Nowak (Harvard) are helpful.
Thank you for the additional resources.
That is exactly the idea I have heard recently. Speaking for myself, I feel this notion that God sustains creation continuously, is very intriguing, but it is just an inkling so far. Should God abandon creation, even momentarily, it would cease to exist. It seems correct.
I can already hear the god of the gaps retort, but that misses her statements completely. She is giving you metaphysical underpinnings, not claiming that our lack of scientific understanding requires God to fill in this unknown part in the middle. That thinking is what she opposed in the video.
Food for thought & this will need some chewing.
Far from being something new, this is called the Unmoved mover argument which dates back to Aristotle. Which makes it older than Christianity. Of Course Aristotle came up with the idea precisely because his understanding of physics was wrong, in particular the observation idea of conservation of Energy did not enter his understanding, because to be frank it really is a counter intuitive idea.
@@KonradZielinski
That is a misunderstanding of her argument & Aristotle's unmoved mover. If we are talking sustaining existance, that isn't a starting point. Deists could claim an unmoved mover & her argument doesn't fit that.
I might have misunderstood your point though. Could you cite the argument in proper form. That might help.
As to physics, let me stop you right there. Aristotle's philosophy isn't science. If you want to say your knowledge on physics doesn't fit his, that is fine. Aristotle had no scientific knowledge. Aristotle didn't know physics & then inserted his prime mover in a gap of knowledge in physics. So, I think you maybe didn't mean that or didn't think it through. Either way, that's just false on a number of axis.
Let's look at the prime mover though. *Why is this posited?* You couldn't logically have an infinite regression of causes. That is where this comes from.
A thought experiment. It is like a bottomless pit. How much dirt would it take to fill the pit & how long?
Each cause I throw down the pit has not effected the depth of the pit. It isn't more or less filled. This is true of millions of causes also, or a billion! How could I arrive at any depth in the pit? Only if I count from the surface, since that has a defined depth of 0. That starting point is the point that is needed. This is prime. *Logically there must be a base cause in the sequence.*
Back to our existance. Logically there must be a starting point. This isn't a guess, it is necessary. A prime mover must exist.
0∆infinity=present moment on a continuum into an Infinite future with a starting point.
@Mackdmara My phillosophy classes where many years ago so giving you specific sources is not going to happen. That said you are confusing unmoved mover with first cause. And Aristotle did write about physics. Hell he coined the term metaphysics, it was the chapter in his book that came before the chapter on physics. But in actually reading what he wrote it is clear that his metaphysics was based on how he viewed physics. He said all change (movement) used energy. Also that the energy gets used up. Change can only happen while energy is being supplied to something. Really if you set aside your modern education this makes intuitive sense when you look at how humans and animals move. And at how fire burns etc.
So in order for things to keep changing the energy has to come from somewhere, the unmoved mover who keeps the universe moving.
@@KonradZielinski
Philosophy isn't science. Aristotle's Philosophy isn't science. You are taking a term used by a philosopher in ancient times & then saying it is synonymous with our current definition. No, it isn't.
Atom also came from ancient philosophy, but it isn't what you think of as an atom in science. Your analysis fits that kind of misunderstanding, sorry.
@@mackdmara Except that for the Ancient Greeks it was the same thing, studying the natural world was part of what a philosopher did : plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ . Its a grounding which appears to be missing in some branches of modern philosophy.
God is ontologically consistent with the idea of something from nothing.
She side stepped the question, yes evolution isn't purely selfishness and harm it also can involve cooperation but that still doesn't answer the question of suffering with an all loving, all powerful being in charge. For living things in existence it is usual that most or the majority of that existence is suffering whether it be mental, emotional or physical, it is part and parcel of life and evolution as far as we know. Why would a God of that described allow that? Is Heaven and the promise of bliss after death the answer? Do all living things go to Heaven and is it worth going through one second of hell for it and if heaven and an after life are the answer what is the evidence (apart from scripture) of it's existence? Those are the questions I would have asked her. A no God scenario makes much more sense in light of these questions.
She has an excellent point.
This is complete BS regarding selfishness - cooperative behavior evolves because of purely selfish factors, it is very superficial to go from "oh, cooperativity is hot in evolutionary theory at the moment" to "therefore the selfish view of evolution is wrong". That's not how it works -- at the fundamental level, i.e. genes, it is all about "selfishness", always has been, always will be, it's just that the goal of selfish fitness maximization is better served by cooperation in some cases.
GM35964 I was actually embarassed by the poverty of critical thinking on display here - you'll note that the interviewer brought up the topic of animal suffering in the natural world (among other issues); the interviewee's nebulous references to selfishness versus altruism do nothing to address that.
I don't know of any predator species that would fail to feed on a sick baby animal from a prey species out of the goodness of its heart, no matter how prone to 'unselfish' behaviour within its own population / genetic line it might be.
Moreover the leap from 'the mathematical parameters for evolution favour limited altruism' to a system of theology strains credibility to say the least.
Also, I balk at the statement that a species which fails to behave unselfishly declines in the long term. It seems to me that there are plenty of long-lasting animals (oviparous sharks come to mind, other examples may be better) that behave in a completely 'selfish' manner and have thrived for millions of years.
There is no rational sense in which the term/quality selfishness can be applied to individual genes. Your own instinctive use of scare quotes around the term betrays an awareness of this.
GM35964 buffalo, elephants have demonstrated protecting other species from predators such as lions, wild dogs etc. this is all unselfish acts that are well documented throughout nature. The more we study the more we learn. It is not about survival of the fittest that I was brainwashed to believe in my public school as a teenager. Science is changing which is what it is designed to do.
The very fact you use the phrase "in some cases" is a bit of a slip on your part. This is exactly the issue with your statement that you want to separate the gene from the organism. But it simply is not the case. And if cases are "sometimes" cooperative that merely suggests rational selfishness to sustain existence. Thus, proving her point.
I agree DManCAWMaster.
However, having read some of the other posts here I am saddened by some of the hostility - describing her argument as BS and poop are NOT helpful. I am very much an agnostic when it comes to God's existence but I try to put any prejudices I might to one side and actually listen to what people have to say. We are all entitled to our opinions but, it seems to me, that there too many posts here which reflect personal prejudices. I think what she has to say is interesting, very rational and measured. In no way is she saying that the theological perspective is the 'truth' but is suggesting it could be one way of addressing some of the questions raised.
The other points I forgot to make was this video does not mention all of her ideas in relation to evolution and cooperative behaviour - see bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/articles/springsummer2007/god-and-evolution-new-solution
This view still does not account for the fact that it was humanity's actions that brought death into the world. If one does accept the Bible, and the need for salvation via one man, Jesus, you are also accepting that death entered the world through one man, Adam. If evolution is true, death is a natural and "good" part of the world, as through it, we have life. Why would Jesus need to defeat death if death was good?
Why can't God just speak from the skies and set everybody straight for the record? Why is it so hard for God to communicate with his creation? if God is really here we shouldn't have to jump through all these hoops to somehow figure out a way that he could be here. if God is really here it should be plain as day as the car your driveway for the tree in your backyard and he shouldn't be afraid to make himself known rather than all this confusion that we have right now of all the different religions, and everyone feels that their religion is the correct one and everybody else is wrong but yet everybody is guided by the holy Spirit
Mush! This is the "god of the gaps" theory reworked. She is suggesting we look for a gap and then shoehorn god into the discussion because it "may" serve some explanatory philosophical function. But that is not how proper science functions.
rumidude Not in the slightest, her questions and ideas were far more concrete than that. It is not about shoehorning but rearticulating. The way you are interpretating her statements is the exact way of thinking she is criticizing in this video.
There are various degrees of selfishness and when you compare it between evolution and theology they are quite different. In theology, human beings are expected to be selfless at all times where in evolution it is only for survival. In addition, meekness and humility are incompatible with evolution whereas it is elevated in theology.
Aerex12 I wouldn't say that. "Loving your neighbor as yourself" and "loving your neighbor instead of yourself" are two completely different things. If you lack self-love, then the Golden Rule does not oblige you to love others. Christian morality is compatible with rational egoism.
when are animals self-less?
Yes, God and the church conspire.
troll
Democratization of artificial intelligence will evolve.
I've always believed that this world was a well-run, tightly-run Training Academy...GOD could remain distant in one sense, but still set up a Hierarchal System to run the day to day. (Ex. the President makes the overall calls, but who greets the immigrants as they enter the country?...a subset of authorities, say Immigration Officers..Port Authority..passed off to Social Services..etc?) This idea is in harmony with what the Mystics taught, and what almost all the Near Death Experiencers claim they ran into. Something to consider.
If God Hegelian?
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Robert J. Hanlon
Hmm
I just wanted her to say slave and master.But her words are elegant and beats around the bush
Right off the bat, I disagree with her claim that there is any logical sense in the "separate magesterium" claim that god does not fall into the category of another large item that exists because in the same sentence she says god is the reason that anyTHING at all exists.
The thrust of her whole argument is that her god is special so there!
John Morris The "non-overlapping magisteria" theory introduced by Stephen Jay Gould certainly has problems, but considering the majority of Christian theologians, stretching back nearly 2000 years, have recognized that the creation accounts in the Book of Genesis were never meant to be read in a straightforwardly literal sense as (pre)historical narrative. Their content is theological, not scientific, despite what modern fundamentalists feel they must believe.
evolution does account for empathy ,such as mother and off spring. GOD is not needed no matter how educated you sound ?????
Evolution is self-defeating. Things just don’t pop into existence on their own
You are very dumb.
God did not created Evil ,Satan and devil created evil On the world 🌍 God he hide from all evil He do evil sometimes but he not evil all the time like Satan his between God power vs Satan power
Last shot of Brians face says it all with that quizzical constipated look on his face....
Look if u spell evolve backward wat do u get just remove the 've an that is why we exist
Lol
She is wrong about the whole selfishness thing. Just simply completely wrong. Stanford has uploaded a whole series of lectures of high quality that explains this.
And I don't find her perspective any brilliant at all.
"the most recent developments in evolutionary biology' to which she refers are at least fifty years old.
Really, the Closer To Truth videos that involve theologians are best viewed as lessons in how not to think. This is eight minutes of nothing - windy talk about God "ontologically undergirding reality"* and inaccurate, strawmandering references to very specific, well-defined ideas from evo biology.
*Anyone who can explain what this is meant to mean, and, more importantly, _how it helps explain anything_, gets a gold star.
While I don't disagree with your points made about her misuse of some aspects of evolutionary theory, I think I understood what she meant with that phrase you quoted, so maybe I can try to help illuminate the point.
It seemed that she was offering a sort of pantheistic idea, similar to the concept of God in some sects of Hinduism or Buddhism (I'm not an expert on these religions, so someone please correct me if this analogy is incorrect). This idea, in it's weakest sense, would mean that God is a necessity for the ongoing existence of the universe, the laws/processes of nature, or some other necessary component for life (in this context). In it's strongest sense, it would mean that reality is God. Thus, she seems to either be making the claim that the processes of evolution are 1) God guided at every step (not a rare viewpoint) or 2) the embodiment of some part of God "himself" (a more unconventional stance, especially in Christian circles). This is just my interpretation, and with her vague and overly complex language, it's about as good as I can do.
Hopefully, that explanation helped a bit, or at least I hope it didn't confuse you more. This isn't to say I hold to any of these claims myself, and there are still many, many issues that arise with this system of thought. But, to me at least, it's an interesting idea to consider and perhaps play around with a bit.
The Sprawl I take the statement to mean what all classical theists maintain: all non-divine reality is metaphysically contingent upon the necessary reality of God.
@@ElasticGiraffe What does that even mean? _How_ is all reality contingent upon God? And why is God not him/her/itself contingent? And if you say 'well, god is a necessary truth', why not get rid of god and just say reality is the necessary truth, which means there's a simpler explanatory chain? Ie. instead of God>Reality>The universe, we just have Reality>The universe?
How you theists can possibly be satisfied with the stuff that theologians come out with I will never know.
Why do the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism) have problem with Evolution and not with other scietific theories? Simply because God said, He created Man somewhere outside of Earth and later sent him to it. There is no way for us to reconcile with it.
However, God did not leave us without any sound argument against any kind of falsehood. Some of them are below:
1. where did the 1st complex cell that began the Evolution come from? Yes, it's complex because it said to have done complex functions like replicating itself... why would it divide itself? that detail will make it an essay instead of a comment
2. Why male and female that could reproduce? what is the chance of evolving into exactly opposite partners? why are they attractive to each other? Why only 2? Why not many? Why reproduction? All of this by chance?
3. Paleontology, the only supposed evidence for evolution, shows thausands of fossils that were preserved millions of years ago that are exaclty same as today's speicies.
Harun Yahya and Don Patton have done good job exposing this false theory.
I don't think they have a problem with them.
I dont think religions have a problem with evolution. I just think they need more time to figure out how to change their doctrines to better fit the new paradigm. Religions evolve and change over time just as science has over the centuries. Science on the other hand changes as new discoveries are made, while religions play catch up.
That bloke looks like the villain from Jumanji
No he doesn't. And your comment isn't really funny....
@@نادرالیراحمان Wasn't supposed to be. Just an observation.
Absolute delusional bollocks
There is no God, and if there is he is a bad person. This idea is older than Christianity.
She understand 0 of how evolution works... I felt cringy just listening her stumble around and trying to appear knowledgeable...
Really, that was not my take on it nor some of my biologist colleagues. Even they argue about the nuances of the evolution debate.
She also has a very basic understanding of God as well, she completely misrepresented the Christian God in this conversation.
"What's the relationship, if there is a relationship, between God and evolution?" There is no such relationship until there is objective, rational empirical evidence for a "God". Until now: zillions of years NOTHING! Discussion useless !!!
It is the evolutiin of God as.an idea.
@@alfalfafalafelmafia The evolution of God? What does that mean for heaven's sake?
@@GeoCoppens if you believe in God as a separate complete unchanging entity, i.e., Jesus, Allah ..etc, this does not make sense. But God as a concept invented by humans, yes.
@@alfalfafalafelmafia Yes, you are right! God was invented, a FICTON! IMAGINARY!!! That's all! You got it!
@@rubiks6 You mind your own goddamn business, dodo!
Her reasoning is to serve you poop on a dish and convince you with distracted phrases totally unrelated that you should eat it because you will like it if you just believe it's chocolate.