That would depend on the reasons why that majority of scientists accept evolution. If it were on faith, then it might be deemed an odd sort of religion. But of course, they accept it for the same reasons they accept other well founded scientific theories. So no, it isn’t a religion. But neither does it need to contradict your religion so long as you don’t infer all sorts of empirical claims while reading the Bible.
2 Likes
I’m not familiar with that expression.
religions don’t need faith, they just need to be a comprehensive worldview with attendent rituals and practices that address the central concerns of human life
e.g. buddhism can be atheistic and is considered a religion
That is a nasty way to talk about your Christian siblings that accept and understand evolutionary science. It is neither scientism nor evolutionism.
why is calling somthing a religion derogatory? i say Catholicism is a religion, and i am Catholic, and am not making fun of myself
likewise, nothing derogatory about saying evolution is a religion
We were, if I recall, talking about evolutionism.
There definitely is when it is science.
well I mean it in the best way possible ;D
It is impossible to say science is religion graciously.
Should I say electrical and computer engineering is your religion? Well, I mean it in the best possible way. ;D
1 Like
I have no idea what the essential aspects of a religion may be. It seems likely that this is something about which even religious people will disagree with one another over. Anyhow, I have no dog in that fight.
From my point of view, I would have said that religious experience is what fuels a sense of purpose and knits meaning into experience. It can perhaps be what makes sense of human experience. But I imagine religious experience is something entirely apart from institutional religion. As useful as science has been, I don’t think it is a good source of meaning or purpose.
indeed, sam harris thinks we can completely remove anything supernatural from religious experience, e.g. by using a special magnetic hat, entirely through the power of science
what we need is an academic definition of religion
one such definition is ‘a system of beliefs and practices by which means groups struggle with ultimate problem of human life’
evolution and science can fit that definition, ergo they are a religion according to academic definition of the term
Christianity is not a religion, it’s a Person.
I believe that’s from Tim Keller.
It does not need to be a choice between belief in God as the ultimate source and origin of the universe with loving interaction and natural evolution because God is the founder of the physical and chemical laws by which evolution takes place. God foresees in advance the potentials and possibilities of life and changes in it. God foresees and plans for the evolution of intelligent life and how that life will act.
its true that scientific materialism does not consider the presence of God and divine interactions, but that does not mean that we need to abandon evolution as actual earth history. We can maintain both. We declare what scientific naturalism leaves out of earth and cosmic history. I would maintain that in this conflict between science and fundamentalist creationism will end in far fewer believers at all.
Is that what you meant, or did you mean the negative of that?
PAACS is a great group. Thank you for your service. They work at Galmi, Niger, as well, where I grew up.
Blessings.
One important distinction often made around here is the difference between “evolution” and “Evolutionism”; the former referring to mere biological or scientific evolution, and the latter referring to the overarching philosophy that attempts to shoe-horn science into everything else as a more [most] comprehensive philosophy of all life. One can fully accept evolution in its most robust (common descent of all life) scientific sense while fully rejecting Evolutionism. Many Christians here do exactly this while many others refuse to make the distinction. Hence our care to parse those terms out (sometimes with a mere choice of CAPS on the first letter or adding “-ism” to the end), but usually actual clarification or contextual consideration is necessary since the conflation of these two things is so culturally embedded by now.
2 Likes
I do mean that the conflict will drive thinking young people away from the church altogether.
Certainly some will leave because of YECism, but if they truly belong to God, they will return (but not as YECs). Becoming a Christian requires a miracle, spiritual eyes and ears and a changed heart.
It may drive some thinking young people, Christian ones, to other churches.