How much is too much evolution?

The British philosopher A. C. Grayling once said that it makes no sense for us to define ourselves in terms of what we don't believe.

I think he makes a very good point. I don't feel compelled to label my non-belief in the existence of a host of hypothetical things that I find very improbable, so why should I give my non-belief in the 'God' of religion a name?

If it were purple unicorns with 6 legs I'd agree with you nothing about that subject matter will alter anyone's life one way or another. No matter if you heard of them or not, if you believed in them or not it alters nothing. Gas in your home unknown to you could kill you, you may not have thought about a gas leak, nothing about gas may be in your head at all, still, the results could be deadly. It is not much different than with God, yes or no about is God real can be nothing but an academic exercise for some, but reality, either way, alters everything.

tbwb10 in reference to your post 358, it is quite long, and I have not read it all just glanced at the first part. I think it is not wise to consider the translations as not inspired; they certainly are not the original, so we call them translations true. My point is that God is sovereign; there is nothing He does not know, so from the smallest particles to the largest cosmic bodies, He sees them and gives absolutely everything His full undivided attention all at once. Setting up the scripture to be written early on in human history so the following generations could grasp the truths within it. He instilled in us all of our languages, and if He wanted to get His point across in scripture, He wouldn't leave it to chance. Words were selected with cause to convey meaning and describe things as they occurred. If you have addressed this in full later than what I have read yet, forgive me. I don't think we should belittle translations as if there is nothing about them that God had a hand in them.

Yes, you'll need to finish reading.  

I am simply conveying mainstream Protestant belief as reflected in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) that most Protestant groups have adopted (particularly evangelicals and fundamentalists).   According to Article X, divine inspiration 'strictly speaking extends only to the [original] autographs...and copies and translations are the Word of God' but only 'to the extent they reflect the original' which we don't have.  We have working copies that are always being updated that our translations are based on, and different  translations have differences and no translation can perfectly translate meaning into another language.  BUT this does not prevent communication of the fundamental teachings and message of the Bible.

Yes, you'll have to finish reading that post when you get the chance.  

Ok, so then would it be more accurate to say you're a metaphysical naturalist?

This is where I need to say something that usually leaves believers aghast but the fact is I find the proposition of 'purple unicorns with 6 legs' less difficult to accept than the very vaguely defined concept of 'God'.

There's nothing in nature I know of that renders such a creature impossible. Admittedly, a six-legged mammal-like animal has never evolved on earth as far as is known but by itself that doesn't make it impossible. And if it otherwise conforms with the rules of evolution and natural processes, as they're understood, why should it be that hard to conceive of?

So on a scale of probability I'd place it higher than 'God'. But that still wouldn't lead me to think of myself as an 'a-unicornist', for reserving judgment on such an issue.

"..yes or no about is God real can be nothing but an academic exercise for some, but reality, either way, alters everything" - I think I understand what you're getting at but then I not only reserve judgment on the afterlife, I positively assert that I believe such a thing is ridiculous.

So appealing to me to believe in 'God', if only at the faith end of belief, in order to reserve my plane seat to the next world, is something of a non-starter.

Can't speak for truthmuse, but it doesn't shock me at all.  All manner of animate creatures and inanimate objects (like spontaneously assembled cars) should exist if nature's all there is and life arose via abiogenesis.

But for me personally, I find the probabilities reversed, and much, much, much more probable that an intelligence must exist than such things to spontaneously self-assemble going against all conceivable odds both statistically and in our experience.

Broadly yes and that description has cropped up before. But then our understanding of precisely what constitutes 'the physical' may well need to be revised from time to time.

The acknowledgement of Dark Matter for example may end up pushing the boundaries in that respect (if it turns out to be a novel form of matter) and the same for Dark Energy.

By "spontaneously assembled cars" I assume you mean the huge improbability of the very first single-celled lifeform coming into existence and not something as exotic as a six-limbed horse-like creature evolving over many millions of years?

But on the subject of an intelligent creator, I return to my point about the need for placing such a concept/explanation in its proper context. That's to say life emerging after so many thousands of millions of years but having done so, then progressing at a glacial pace and by a process (evolution) that even most religious people agree was entirely natural.

And where exactly did all the 'stuff' necessary for life on Earth come from? It had to be synthesised within exploding stars over (yet again) hundreds of millions of years until all elements necessary for life were in place.

If we're moving beyond the OP perhaps we could consider some of the thorny questions that such facts throw up? Namely, why would an all-powerful conscious creator create a Universe with only the simplest element and wait millions of years until clouds of Hydrogen had condensed sufficiently to trigger nuclear fusion, forming the first stars? And then wait many more hundreds of millions of years for heavier elements to form when those stars went supernova?

If so very much of a process resembles an entirely natural system, it seems most likely that it is in fact an entirely natural system.

Looks like we've already moved beyond the OP, quite a bit actually.  As far as the 'thorny' questions I really don't see them as 'thorny' or problematic at all, and I think we've already discussed them at length already on other threads.  I don't think we got very far or came to an agreement on anything though.  So we'll probably just have to continue to agree to disagree on those, which of course is no problem and how most forum discussions end up anyway.

I'm not sure I follow you on a vaguely described God; scripturally speaking, God's attributes are spelled out. Granted, I'm talking about the God described in scripture. The Old Testament Christians share with the Jews; they just call it the scriptures, since they don't recognize the New Testament as scripture, but we are both talking about the same God. Christians just believe He became a man, and the Word became flesh, Jesus Christ, who redeemed us for God due to His love for us. I find nothing about this vaguely defined.

I'm assuming you are bi-lingual correct? You can understand a meaning expressed to you in the languages you speak? I get the point that they say the original is without error, which is handy since we don't have them any more, and if we did, we more than likely wouldn't trust them. Because what could be claimed as the orgional would be the SOURCE for the Word of God. As it stands now, because of the many languages it has been translated into, copies upon copies made it is impossible to add to or take away verses that alter the meaning of some truth. I think we are in good hands with the translations because of this. I'll read the rest of your post in a few minutes, I promise.

I see your point; I get it, I believe, but that still leaves us with the text as-is issue. I use Bible Gateway more than I even read my Bibles mainly because I can adjust the size of the text to accommodate my eyesight. If I run across a passage or point, I want to know everything I can find out about; I can look it up in a huge number of translations, on top of scholarly commentary on it. I also know there are numerous ways things are translated; some can attempt word for word, capture the meaning and use the most precise words possible to convey the meaning; some even use the simplest choice of words for those who don't have a strong vocabulary. I think it's dangerous to translate for the reasons you spelled out, and we can get it wrong. I also have more faith in a group of churches getting together that normally don't agree on some points all translating together than a single source individual. Even if I trust the individual, I think one man's filter over several is not as trustworthy. I would prefer that if groups got together that they are not from common cloth, so to speak, iron sharpens iron, make the points and hash it out is better than, oh this is what it means, trust me.

I'm confused.  It sounds like we agree on something.  I think that makes 3 things now.  Should I be concerned?

I know scary isn't it.

Out of interest, how do you separate naturalism from nihilism (as from my understanding of philosophy, naturalism leads to nihilism most of the time)?

tbwp10, just so you know I still believe we have some issues in how we view the text in Genesis for the reasons I have repeated several times. I don't believe I have seen anything that leads me to think that text can be read and the meaning of the words used to be anything other than an accurate description of how the universe and life began.

Actually, you've seen lots of things.  You've just ignored or rejected them.  Your view can only be maintained by ignoring the clear Ancient Near East historical/cultural context and Egyptian background.  The pre-scientific cosmological view presented in Genesis 1 also shows that whatever it is it is not an accurate description.  Your rejection of the historical/cultural context also leaves you with a number of predicaments.  For example, you say Genesis 1 is an accurate description, but then you're unable to expound further and bring any clarity to the meaning of those words, which begs the question of how useful your approach is.  By contrast, the historical/cultural context tells us quite clearly what is meant, for example, by Genesis 1.2, or the 'firmament' or the 'waters above', while you've only been able to say, 'I have no idea'.

But if someone strongly advocates the belief that life must have been created since something so complex requires a conscious creator to bring it into existence, and you've been promoting this for page after page, surely it's reasonable to take such a proposition and place it firmly within the context of all 'creation'?

I'm using creation in a naturalistic sense to refer to everything of a physical nature.

If you insist that a purposeful, guiding hand caused life to emerge, then I think you need to tackle the quite difficult context in which that happened.

I had in mind the nature of this thing called 'God' rather than any powers, abilities or attributes. For example, of what kind is it? And how does something that has neither form nor substance think?

I've only ever heard people of faith address these questions in the vaguest terms.