From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 16 Apr 1992 02:27:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr15.195319.25688@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr) writes:
>Does anyone
>have a thought (I'm sure you do) on what the effect on this group would be
>if creation was found to be true? 
>
>I'm curious, because the idea of religion vs science seems to be an additional
>division of subgroups within the main evolution/creation elements.  But if God
>does exist, then His existence would be fact and would have to be incorporated 
>into our consideration of science.  
>
>A lot of "what if's" seem to be exchanged on this net, so lets try this one.

Indeed an interesting question. Let's assume then that God exists. The immediate
result will be that God is doing whatever (s)he can to confuse us. For, if God
exists, which sacred text should we believe? And, if we are supposed to believe
the Bible,then, which one  of the many available? Actually, it is pretty scary:
all Bibles  threaten you will hell unless you unconditionally surrender to theirrespective Jesus. Since there is no way to rationalize the selection process
(since there is no way you can reason within the Bible) then it must mean that
God wants us to make random choices when it comes to which particular church
we believe in! On the other hand, we are told by ALL Bibles and Churches that
if we are "good" we'll go to heaven. This is puzzling: even if you want to be
good from all your heart you may choose the wrong religion and, according to
all other Christian religions, go to hell! Then God does not give you any
incentive to be good. Also, if God created us according to his image, then he
should be rational. In other words, he can not tell us: "be good" and confuse
the hell out of us at the same time when it comes to the way to be good...

Another way God (if he exists) confuses the masses big time is through the 
discrepance between sacred texts and evidence. If he wants us to believe the
sacred texts, why does  he give us reason, a tool that points to different
conclusions? To see which of us is strong enough to completely abdicate from
reasoning and trust his word, which there are many of?

I maintain that nothing nonconfusing follows from the assumption that world has
been created.As a matter of fact, creationism does not solve anthing. For, if
God created the world, who, then, in turn, created God? A creationist will
tell you that God is eternal and noncreated, fine attributes that solve the
problem, but do not anwer the question: why can not Nature have these attri-
butes?

So we have two theories here: God is eternal and non created, and, Nature
is eternal and non created. The first sentence is "proved" by a series
of various contradicting old texts and damagingly questioned by the avai-
lable data; also, it forces you, if you accept it, to abandon ratioanlity.

The second theory is as complete as the first, is supported by all available
data and maintains you sanity intact.


I do not think the choice is tough at all.

Cheers!


-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics

Newsgroups: aus.radio