The crocodile/alligator to me is (one of) the most perfect species and it has lived for millions of years without much change in evolution. And it hasn't needed to build homes or boats or air conditioners.
The thing to remember is that evolution isn't an intelligent quest for perfection (unless you specifically claim that there exists a God who is using it in that manner). Naturalistically, it's a process of adapting to your environment through shifts in which parts of the population reproduce more. Nor is there "a" right way, but rather any number of possible useful traits.
Solitary living in swamps requires little intelligence. Alligators are unintelligent, and they're good at solitary living in swamps, so they've little chance of changing unless the swamps do.
Humans lack fangs, claws, armor, amphibiousness, wings, poison, or any of a number of other useful traits. For them to live at all requires cooperation and tool use, which require intelligence, which is a useful trait they DO have. Humans have gotten so good at cooperating and tool use (because the ones who sucked at it got eaten) that they can now afford to have a lot of stupid members (more intelligent ones use tools to help the less intelligent ones, in a form of cooperation). Unless things change (for example, if electromagnetic storms wiped out the usefulness of tools)...
What if religion evolves like species? Maybe the Hebrews were doing something different because the leaders recognized it as 'better' (less meaner if you do not want to get into qualifying what is good) and made up their own take on god.
God is a moving target. Man created him to explain what he did not understand. As man gains understanding, god must be moved to one, explain the new apparent contradiction and two, explain things we do not understand in the new context.
|
Humans lack fangs, claws, armor, amphibiousness, wings, poison, or any of a number of other useful traits. For them to live at all requires cooperation and tool use, which require intelligence, which is a useful trait they DO have. Humans have gotten so good at cooperating and tool use (because the ones who sucked at it got eaten) that they can now afford to have a lot of stupid members (more intelligent ones use tools to help the less intelligent ones, in a form of cooperation). Unless things change (for example, if electromagnetic storms wiped out the usefulness of tools)...
Except that humans would have needed a reason to "de-volve" those traits -- and I have a hard time understanding why.
Cooking food. Why? Does burnt flesh really taste better? Yet somehow, the environment (or something) caused us to evolve to the point where we must cook our food or get sick from it. What other species gets sick if they don't cook their food?
You bring up that we got good at tool use or got eaten. Why that? Why not become faster? Get tougher skin? Or any number of other things that seem to be fairly well documented through evolution and time? No. Somehow, we knew that our bodies were becoming weak and pathetic and we had the foresight to somehow fashion a weapon to protect ourselves from creatures who for some reason gave us the time to come up with it before trying to eat us.
And speaking of time, we really haven't had that much time to develop this. We keep talking about how most evolutionary changes take place over millions of years yet we've only really been here for a few thousand.
Even teaching other animals doesn't really get anywhere. No matter how many chimps we teach to get dressed themselves, they will never get to the point where they will make a plow and start deliberately planting and harvesting crops. They've had just as much time as we have to evolve.
I still feel that we are VERY different than animals. I feel that there is more evidence that suggests that we shouldn't be the way we are -- yet we are. I guess that we "won" that lottery as well. And all the great things that go along with it -- like war, and work, etc.
|
|
God is a moving target. Man created him to explain what he did not understand. As man gains understanding, god must be moved to one, explain the new apparent contradiction and two, explain things we do not understand in the new context.
There may be a lot of truth to this.
The more look into this, the more that "understanding" is relative.
In addition, I've seen too many times where people take something that exists and twist it to obtain something far different that the original intention.
|
The argument has been made that we now control our environment to such a degree that we've basically short-circuited evolution. I don't pretend to know enough about evolution to know if how reasonable that is, but it isn't hard to imagine that, being extremely near-sighted, I would not have surivived to reproduce until very recently (in the grand scheme of things).Is there any other species where the kids stay with you for 20 years before they move out? ;-)
This was partially tongue-in-cheek. I just don't see that intelligence is a natural by-product of evolution. The crocodile/alligator to me is (one of) the most perfect species and it has lived for millions of years without much change in evolution. And it hasn't needed to build homes or boats or air conditioners.
Gators and crocs don't wear human skinned boots.
'Nuff said ;)
|
|
Help me understand the relevance to what I see to be the question at hand (the existence of God). Seriously...I'm not at all being sarcastic. I want to understand your position.
There are far too many things for me that quite simply don't make sense, that science can't explain, that most likely science will never explain that I feel religion (and for me, Christianity) has answers for. Are they neat answers? No. Not at all.
But there are so many people who throw around "evolution" as though that explains away Christianity. Yet there are so many things that "simple" evolution can't really explain.
Of course, Christians have made fairly easy targets of themselves recently by taking a very literal stance on certain passages of scripture that I don't believe were ever meant to be taken literally. At its most basic level, the Bible ultimately was written to give glory to God and to give hope to mankind. How much would people 4,000 years ago have understood about millions of years, or evolution, or dinosaurs, or whatever -- and what would that have done for them? Nothing.
I believe that I am much more than a "simple" animal. Call it hubris. Call it vanity. Call it whatever you want. The Bible says that God made man in his image. I have no idea what exactly that means, but most scholars don't believe that it means that God looks like me. Nothing in science tells me that this (humanity) is "natural". The Bible gives me some reason for being more than an animal and at least some explanation as to why.
Other things that I don't get are -- life to begin with. To my knowledge, we still can't truly create life even under controlled conditions. We can get all the parts in the same place, but still can't make "magic" to create cells. And if we can't even do it under controlled conditions with all our technology, I really don't see how it can happen as a truly random act. With your lottery example, it's (to me) like saying -- "Ok, we got these random numbers this last time. So all we have to do is take this number and put it here, and this one and put it here, and so on and we get the same result." Who knows. Maybe one day we will be able to truly create life. I've heard of stranger things.
Another thing that I don't get are multi-celled organisms. To my knowledge there is absolutely no evidence of two-celled organisms. Which tells me that for some reason, the environment forced a bunch of cells together into one organism. And I can't wrap my head around that one at all. Bacteria are probably the most perfect creature in the world. It lives everywhere. In nearly any and every condition. What possible reason is there for these creatures to band together and (apparently) over millions of years of banding together eventually become skin, and muscle, and nerves, etc. Then, not only that, but this said creature couldn't be alone -- it somehow and for some reason created a way to reproduce that for some reason required another of the same species, etc.
There is a fair amount that science and "evidence" doesn't explain for me. I am a Christian. Christianity fits for me with my understanding of how life, the universe and everything work and came about.
|
|
The argument has been made that we now control our environment to such a degree that we've basically short-circuited evolution. I don't pretend to know enough about evolution to know if how reasonable that is, but it isn't hard to imagine that, being extremely near-sighted, I would not have surivived to reproduce until very recently (in the grand scheme of things).Is there any other species where the kids stay with you for 20 years before they move out? ;-)
This was partially tongue-in-cheek. I just don't see that intelligence is a natural by-product of evolution. The crocodile/alligator to me is (one of) the most perfect species and it has lived for millions of years without much change in evolution. And it hasn't needed to build homes or boats or air conditioners.
Gators and crocs don't wear human skinned boots.
'Nuff said ;)
Nope. They have human toothpicks...
;)
We keep talking about how most evolutionary changes take place over millions of years yet we've only really been here for a few thousand.
Actually, modern man has been around for about 150,000 years.
|
|
Actually, modern man has been around for about 150,000 years.We keep talking about how most evolutionary changes take place over millions of years yet we've only really been here for a few thousand.
Really? That's about twice as long as I understood. My apologies. Still a lot less time than the dinos.
Really? That's about twice as long as I understood. My apologies. Still a lot less time than the dinos.Actually, modern man has been around for about 150,000 years.We keep talking about how most evolutionary changes take place over millions of years yet we've only really been here for a few thousand.
If I'm not mistaken it was at one time believed to be around 75 to 100 thousand years. Over the years the number keeps going up. In fact, many scientists believe it to be as high as 200,000 years.
|
|
If I'm not mistaken it was at one time believed to be around 75 to 100 thousand years. Over the years the number keeps going up. In fact, many scientists believe it to be as high as 200,000 years.
Since you seem to be more up on this than I am, what constitutes a "modern" man? I know that they've identified different offshoots that came from the same(?) genetic parents, but are you saying that homosapiens are 150,000 years old or that our ancestors are?
If I'm not mistaken it was at one time believed to be around 75 to 100 thousand years. Over the years the number keeps going up. In fact, many scientists believe it to be as high as 200,000 years.Since you seem to be more up on this than I am, what constitutes a "modern" man? I know that they've identified different offshoots that came from the same(?) genetic parents, but are you saying that homosapiens are 150,000 years old or that our ancestors are?
What science considers modern man are Homo Sapiens, which are around 150,000 years old. Our ancestry of course goes back much further. Early hominid ancestors of ours date back to around 4 million years ago.
Edit- This is a good site for more info on our ancestors if you're interested.
|
If a leaf can become a fossil, so can a building, or pottery, or a rake, or a microwave oven.
Ah, uhm. No. That's not how it works. I can explain why, but I'm asking you to trust me on this.
What I'm saying is that the evidence of our intelligence can and will still be around long after we are gone.
200 million years after? 70 million years after? Exceedingly unlikely.
Being able to build a spear, a chariot, a car, etc. is FAR more than simply being able to recognize oneself in a mirror.
You can't have the former without the latter. In fact, the latter is the much more difficult jump. Out of 1.5 million species, only one is universally recognized as having made that jump, and only a handful are generally recognized as doing it. Of the one, 100% have managed spears and cars. Of the handful, a huge percentage (varying based on your number of species acknowledged) has done it. :)
And if we are the peak of evolutionary greatness, it seems pretty sad to me. Our eyes are piss poor. We can't handle the heat. We can't handle the cold. We work more than any other species on the planet. We need drugs to help us feel better. "Survival of the fittest"? Humans are the most unfit that we've ever been.
Moff, do not take this wrong way, because it is not meant in a denigrating or insulting fashion, but this whole paragraph shows a near total misunderstanding of evolution and evolutionary terminology. Evolutionary Fitness is determined by a single criteria, "Do your offspring reproduce?" That's all it means. If you reproduce, you did good. If your children reproduce, you "won" - you successfully passed your genes along. Humans are more evolutionarily fit than any mammal on Earth.
And no one with any proper evolutionary education would ever speak of "the peak of evolution". Evolution is not a ladder, it is not a tree, there is no chain of being from a single cell to the angels. Evolution is the visible result of a population adapting to its current environment, and those beings that reproduce successfully the most in that environment pass along the genes that allow for successful reproduction in larger numbers than those who are less "fit". Should condition change, and remain changed, traits that were successful in Environment A become a detriment in Environment B - and who is more or less fit changes entirely based on that.
Humans have succeeded by being a weed species. We're not the best at... most things. There's a few things that we're freakishly good at, and it's really an awesome discussion, but it's entirely tangential to my point. We're "good enough" to survive anywhere, and then we have the to-date unique ability to alter our environment artificially, to allow us to thrive. We can handle the heat, if not as well as something that is very tightly adapted to that environment. We can handle the cold, if not as well as something that is very tightly adapted to that environment. Throw hot creature into the Arctic, and cold creature into the Sahara, and they'll fart out pretty quickly. But because we're just "okay" at either environment, we don't completely blow our circuits trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
Except that humans would have needed a reason to "de-volve" those traits -- and I have a hard time understanding why.
Humans were never crocodiles. Nothing to devolve there. Go back in the ancestry, past ape-like ancestors (NOT MONKEYS!!!) to small mammals -- not particularly bright by our standards, but small enough to avoid notice, clever enough to hide, and able to regulate body temperature to survive a far wider swing of climatic conditions than any reptile ever could. No armor or claws in sight.
No matter how many chimps we teach to get dressed themselves, they will never get to the point where they will make a plow and start deliberately planting and harvesting crops.
We do, however, see them intentionally taking long, straight branches, removing the side branches and leaves, and sharpening the ends to make spears that they can poke into trees to get grubs. We see them engage in exceptionally complex social behaviors -- ones that make a bunch of sorority chicks seem socially inept. So, maybe they're not as smart, but they're just as good at living cooperatively, and they're stronger. It's a combination that's worked OK for them.
There is no one perfect way of doing things. There are an infinite number of combinations, some better suited than others in certain environments, that's all. One cannot understand evolution while thinking in absolutes, like we discussed before -- but once you drop a mental waveband into the "science-think" I described earlier, the whole process is almost breathtaking in its simplicity. If I were God, I'd have set things up the exact same way.
Excuse me, but how am I supposed to keep up with this thread when you people post 53 new comments since yesterday afternoon? Honestly! :-)
|
|
Moff, do not take this wrong way, because it is not meant in a denigrating or insulting fashion, but this whole paragraph shows a near total misunderstanding of evolution and evolutionary terminology. Evolutionary Fitness is determined by a single criteria, "Do your offspring reproduce?" That's all it means. If you reproduce, you did good. If your children reproduce, you "won" - you successfully passed your genes along. Humans are more evolutionarily fit than any mammal on Earth.
For the record -- I'm not insulted at all. Your comments are tame compared to some that Sebastian has thrown at me and I like to consider Sebastian a friend...
You have some great points. And I will admit that I don't feel that I have a great grasp of evolution yet. However, a lot of what you are saying and describing is something that still doesn't make sense to me. A lot of what you are talking about is what we are currently. It's the transition to this point that I don't fully get. What we have become is something that feels to me doesn't really fit with evolution. Evolution at its most basic level talks about a species adapting to its environment. We don't do that. We force our environment to adapt to us. Yes we have certainly "populated the earth" which was one of the first commands made by God. But how and why? Most (all?) animal species are able to get up and move around on their own after birth. But not us. From an evolutionary point of view, how does this make sense? Even apes and monkeys can move and hold on to their parents shortly after birth. Yet here we are and for some reason that truly eludes me it seems to have worked.
Yes we have "won". But why or how we "won" doesn't fully make sense to me.
|
|
We see them engage in exceptionally complex social behaviors -- ones that make a bunch of sorority chicks seem socially inept. So, maybe they're not as smart, but they're just as good at living cooperatively, and they're stronger. It's a combination that's worked OK for them.
We've also seen them pick their butt and eat their boogers whereas we...
Never mind.
|
|
There is no one perfect way of doing things. There are an infinite number of combinations, some better suited than others in certain environments, that's all. One cannot understand evolution while thinking in absolutes, like we discussed before -- but once you drop a mental waveband into the "science-think" I described earlier, the whole process is almost breathtaking in its simplicity. If I were God, I'd have set things up the exact same way.
This was very well said. In the grand scheme of things, regardless of what I or anyone else says the whole system works. There are still a lot of things that I don't understand and probably never will. But there is no reason not to believe that God and science cannot "live" in harmony.
|
|
Evolution at its most basic level talks about a species adapting to its environment. We don't do that. We force our environment to adapt to us.
Barring my wild and by necessity unsupported speculation about dinosaur civilizations, we're the first species that we know of to have full-on, wearing a tie and shooting each other over sneakers, sapience. We're a special case for that; we *do* force our environment to adapt to us. Other animals do that to some extent (all of 'em brainy as hell compared to their neighbors) but nobody does it on as vast and as total a scale as us.
History has yet to vindicate whether intelligence is a viable long-term strategy. We're still infants as far as species lifespan goes.
Most (all?) animal species are able to get up and move around on their own after birth. But not us. From an evolutionary point of view, how does this make sense?
Our brains are so absurdly huge compared to our bodies, that if we didn't give birth to half-formed larvae, either the mother or the infant would always die. To be as well-developed as most mammals at birth, our children would need to be roughly two years old when born. Ask a woman if she'd like to pass a two-year old in exchange for not having to change diapers. Even now, thanks to the changes bipedalism has wrought, babies sort of have to be threaded like a screw through the birth canal. It's crazy, but the long-term effects of big, creepy brains have allowed to us surmount even this obstacle. By being social critters, we help each other give birth - which increases baby survival, which increases fitness, which is win. Even if mom dies, the community raises the baby, and their big ol' brains start looking for solutions to the problem of orphan babies and dead moms. In the meantime, Junior applies HIS big, creepy brain to solving the problem of making sure that Shaman Thog has enough food to eat while he cogitates on the matter of baby mamas.
It's all a big, creepy, sloppy mess that after hitting a certain critical transition point makes evolution kind of redundant. Our single adaptation lets us "fake" all the other adaptations we need. History alone can let us know if ignoring environmental population pressures is something you can get away with for very long. Ask me again how useful an adaptation it is in 2 million years.
Yet here we are and for some reason that truly eludes me it seems to have worked.
They don't call it the miracle of life for nothin', man.
They don't call it the miracle of life for nothin', man.
That's an overwhelmingly important point, because it illustrates that both theists and non-theists can contemplate life, the universe, and everything, and feel incredible, humbling awe at their beauty and grandeur. In all that, a theist sees the hand of God. An atheist sees that the universe (on a large scale), and life (on a smaller scale), are breathtakingly amazing things, worthy of a lifetime of study, awe, and respect -- even more so if they were the result of processes of natural laws, rather than by sudden declaration. Studying how things work, scientifically, does not one iota detract from the grandeur of things -- quite the opposite, in fact. (P.S. Carl Sagan explained this much better than I possibly can in Pale Blue Dot.)
I would not say evolution explains away Christianity. In fact, I currently think of myself as a Christian Atheist. I think evolution strongly suggests that Genesis is not entirely factual.
Evolution might work towards producing the perfect species, but it does not do it right out of the gate. In fact, my understanding is that by definition, evolution has to screw up a lot to get a working model.
Evolution focuses on creating species that are good enough. If there is intelligence behind the design, why did god not create the perfect species? Why did he make us so fragile?
We are special only in that our mutation was a bigger brain and opposable thumbs. And maybe a larynx. Otherwise, you might be having this discussion with a dolphin right now.
|
|
They don't call it the miracle of life for nothin', man.That's an overwhelmingly important point, because it illustrates that both theists and non-theists can contemplate life, the universe, and everything, and feel incredible, humbling awe at their beauty and grandeur. In all that, a theist sees the hand of God. An atheist sees that the universe (on a large scale), and life (on a smaller scale), are breathtakingly amazing things, worthy of a lifetime of study, awe, and respect -- even more so if they were the result of processes of natural laws, rather than by sudden declaration. Studying how things work, scientifically, does not one iota detract from the grandeur of things -- quite the opposite, in fact. (P.S. Carl Sagan explained this much better than I possibly can in Pale Blue Dot.)
We should also remember just how fragile that life is. No matter what we're the only creature that we know of that has ever had the possibility of ending themselves and all around them. We're also the only creature whose ever had the possibility of shaping everything around us. Whether you call that "made in god's image" or sentients is just a matter of semantics. It just really shows just how beautiful mankind really is.
|
|
Evolution might work towards producing the perfect species,Evolution focuses on creating species that are good enough.
Sorry to use your post for this, CourtFool, but...
Evolution doesn't work towards anything. Evolution doesn't focus on anything. In every day conversation, we so often reify evolution, and then anthropomorphize that reification - we say evolution works towards something, we say that evolution focuses on something, we talk about evolution as a thing we can hold and manipulate. And as a thing with goals.
Evolution isn't even a process. It's result of a process. We can't hold evolution in our hands, because all the little things like "fitness" and "mutation" and "adaptation" and "descent with modification" add up to form a gestalt that we call evolution. It isn't any single thing. When talk about a great D&D game, we don't speak only of the rules, we talk about the people who played, the conditions we played in, the specific adventure, the dice, the snacks, the quality of the players' lives away from the table. It's all these things adding up, and then we call it "that D&D game at Carl's" so that we can put a handle on it and manipulate the idea. Evolution's like that.
And it has no drive, no goal. Nothing is evolving towards or away anything. Nothing is more or less evolved. Only things in direct competition can be said to be better or worse evolved than one another. You could argue that evolution has the goal of making sure that a certain configuration of genetic material is immortal, but that's again assigning an agency to the genetic material that can confuse issues. Drives and goals come from non-evolutionary factors - like, to gently steer things back to the thread topic, religion.
Sorry to use your post for this, CourtFool, but...
No problem.
Evolution isn't even a process.
Sure, labels are tricky, but how far down the "…that depends on what your definition of 'is' is" hole do you want to go?
I was listening to This American Life on NPR. They had a show called, "This I Used to Believe." In Act II, a woman who lost her faith after the death of her friend, has a conversation with a Christian coach. I think it speaks powerfully to the current conversation.
Thanks for the link! My wife and I just finished watching the "atheist lives with Christian family" episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days. The Christian husband says the same thing that all my Christian friends do: "How can a person possibly have any morals if they don't believe in God?"
I have never understood this question. I mean, I see from experience that benevolence, respect for others' persons and property, honesty, and integrity are manifestly and empirically "winning strategies" when living in a communal society. Not coincidentally, they are considered virtues in pretty much all major world religions. Not murdering your neighbor without extreme provocation is an absolute moral injunction whether you're a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an atheist, or a fire-worshipper. So, if there is a God, He certainly made men clear on what universal values are... or (or if not), evolution certainly produced a species which is socially competent.
But then I'm told that if I help my neighbor because it's a useful and good thing to do, I'm simply pragmatic (not to mention mean and self-serving), not moral. If I help my neighbor because a certain book tells me to, I'm virtuous and upstanding. What do people here think?
I'm willing to start. As a Buddhist, it's simple: the principle of interbeing dictates that relieving suffering in others is relieving it in oneself; "I" of course feel better when others do, too. As an atheist, doing good deeds not only makes my own life better and easier, but I also find that my own conscience is a much harsher taskmaster than the Catholic church ever was. As a scientist, I admire strategies that produce maximum results with minimal energy expenditure.
I'm especially interested in getting as many other perspectives as possible: Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc. Help me out here!
From at least one Christian's perspective, I am of the opinion that you can't really love God with all your heart if you treat His creation like crap. And that goes double for how you treat others, since that was so important that it was especially singled out over and over and over again.
For some reason I am often accused of oversimplifying things :)
From at least one Christian's perspective, I am of the opinion that you can't really love God with all your heart if you treat His creation like crap.
Right -- so the question is, if a non-Christian doesn't believe in that God, he/she obviously has no reason not to treat His creation like crap, right? Or do you believe that there can there be other reasons not to?
From at least one Christian's perspective, I am of the opinion that you can't really love God with all your heart if you treat His creation like crap.Right -- so the question is, if a non-Christian doesn't believe in that God, he/she obviously has no reason not to treat His creation like crap, right? Or do you believe that there can there be other reasons not to?
I think that enlightened self-interest often gets people to the same place. Just because you don't believe in God, you still have to live here on this planet with these people. Treating the place you live and the people you share it with with respect just makes sense.
|
|
I think that enlightened self-interest often gets people to the same place. Just because you don't believe in God, you still have to live here on this planet with these people. Treating the place you live and the people you share it with with respect just makes sense.From at least one Christian's perspective, I am of the opinion that you can't really love God with all your heart if you treat His creation like crap.Right -- so the question is, if a non-Christian doesn't believe in that God, he/she obviously has no reason not to treat His creation like crap, right? Or do you believe that there can there be other reasons not to?
I am an atheist and I approve this message. ;-)
Kirth,
The commonalities of most religions basically translate to the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This isn't a particularly hard principle to grasp, even if you don't believe in a divine power. It can also be summed up as "Don't be a git." Again, not a difficult principle.
But I'll reiterate a point I made last time this topic came up: For the people who believe that only Christians, and maybe other religions, can be moral, their morality and their faith are inseparable. They cannot conceive of one without the other. They therefore cannot conceive how anyone else could get to decent morality without religion. It gets back to the different mindsets you brought up earlier. Because their faith is the foundation of everything, they can't understand people for whom it isn't. At least, that's how it looks like to me.
|
|
Paul in the book of Romans acknowledges that even unbelievers, by their actions acknowledge there is a right and wrong. So as a Christian there is an assumption that a basic standard of morality, i.e. a conscience, is a part of our birthright as humanity. Which from a doctrinal standpoint only condemns us the more when we don't follow it.
Not all behavior is of course ingrained and thus the need for good parenting. The Bible stresses this as well. Between an inborn conscience and the guidance of good parents, many people can do quite well, from the standpoint of men, in matters of right and wrong.
That being said, certain elements of Christian morality are going to make more sense from a perspective of faith. The worship of God, which is doctrinally a matter of morality, makes no sense to an athiest or agnostic. Also, an acceptance of a universal authority, i.e. God, makes Christian thought much more likely to be black and white when it comes to good and evil. All lies are condemned, regardless of circumstance. Fornication is always wrong, even if you are "in love." Etc. Furthermore, the philisophical differences between a worldveiw with a God and a worldveiw without a God will most certainly lead to a difference of opinion at some point as to what is moral and what is not moral and why. The basics (lying, cheating, stealing, murder) most people agree on, but its normally the smaller issues that show the real differences in philosophies.
|
|
... The basics (lying, cheating, stealing, murder) most people agree on, but its normally the smaller issues that show the real differences in philosophies.
I promised myself I would only read this thread, but I am curious for your (pl) opinions.
Warning: secular comment and question follows:
If the above is true, is religion any longer necessary (this assumes that the inherent cohesive nature of religion was necessary as a mechanism of speciation success in humans)? Do we, as a species, still need religiosity in order to survive as a social organism?
I'd also be curious to find out what others think with regard to the point, anthropologically, where humans picked up the basics Wicht mentions above--did they necessarily evolve from the components of religion, or from a basic social need to follow a set of rules intrinsically linked to communal survival?
|
|
[But I'll reiterate a point I made last time this topic came up: For the people who believe that only Christians, and maybe other religions, can be moral, their morality and their faith are inseparable. They cannot conceive of one without the other. They therefore cannot conceive how anyone else could get to decent morality without religion.
As I sit here and eat my breakfast of chex mix, another thought comes to me. I wonder if there isn't a problem of terms here. Small issues and philisophical differences aside, most evangelical Christians understand that their fellow man has an inborn sense of right and wrong (hardline Calvanist possibly excepted). And while we do worry about the degenerency of the world without God, when we try to talk to others, morality is really only a side issue (or it should be.)
What we are really worried about is the soul. And I wonder if that is not where the problem in communication lies. To our mindset, the soul is the most important thing. The body dies. The soul does not. Furthermore, a general level of morality is not good enough in terms of the soul and the hereafter. We all stand condemn, because regardless of personal morality, we have all, at one time or another done the wrong thing. In Christian thought, a single sin condemns. Just as you only have to speed one time to get a ticket; just as you only have to kill one person to be a murderer; so you only have to commit one sin to be a sinner. And there is no escaping the judgment of God who is aware of all our transgressions. Thus the need for grace, atonement and forgiveness. The blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins so that we can strive to do better. Without forgiveness there is no point in doing better because you stand condemned already.
When a Christian tells another person, "I am worried about your soul," I wonder if the non-believer does not often hear - "I am worried about your morals." Which is not quite what we mean at all. You athiests and agnostics can enlighten me as to whether this is true, - or do you understand the difference that your believing friends place on morality and salvation (assuming they understand it)?
|
|
If the above is true, is religion any longer necessary (this assumes that the inherent cohesive nature of religion was necessary as a mechanism of speciation success in humans)? Do we, as a species, still need religiosity in order to survive as a social organism?
Hey Andrew, not a totally secular answer but... In my opinion, the smaller differences in morality make a very large difference over time. I would prefer to live in a society governed by values that are largely a by-product of a Judeo-Christian philosophy than one based on some other philiosophys. As well, from a Christian perspective, I do believe that the foundation that is a believe in a higher authority than man gives a certain stability to a culture and its mores. All values have to be based on some philosophy. As far as I can tell, most societal experiments which contained as part of their first principles, "no religion," have failed within a couple of generations. And there have been such trials. But if you want to try it yourself, establish a community with such a requirement and see how long it lasts.
As well, from a Christian perspective, I do believe that the foundation that is a believe in a higher authority than man gives a certain stability to a culture and its mores.
To introduce an exception to your line of reasoning, Tibet seemed to be doing well for quite a while before the Chinese annexed it, and Buddhism involves no "higher authority" in the sense that you mean it (we do not worship the Buddha any more than Christians worship Moses).
|
|
As well, from a Christian perspective, I do believe that the foundation that is a believe in a higher authority than man gives a certain stability to a culture and its mores.To introduce an exception to your line of reasoning, Tibet seemed to be doing well for quite a while before the Chinese annexed it, and Buddhism involves no "higher authority" in the sense that you mean it (we do not worship the Buddha any more than Christians worship Moses).
I could be better versed in Bhuddism, I will admit, but I do know that the Bhudda is not worshipped. But don't his teachings remain both constant and, to some extent, authoritative? That is, is the Bhudda considered a man like other men, or are his teachings held to be a higher authority than the opinions of common men?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Folks might misrepresent it, folks might manipulate believers with select passages. Folks might study it half-heartedly and fail to consider its context.All sadly true.
I'd add just one more possibility, in honor of Thomas Jefferson: folks might study it carefully and still reject it, not out of ignorance or evil, but out of moral conviction.
Certainly. I did that for years. I didn't mean the list to be all-inclusive, I just meant that the Bible can be protected by God from alterations, but that doesn't mean it's protected from being equivocated, misunderstood or used selfishly.
I didn't mean the list to be all-inclusive, I just meant that the Bible can be protected by God from alterations, but that doesn't mean it's protected from being equivocated, misunderstood or used selfishly.
That's a very excellent point.
But don't his teachings remain both constant and, to some extent, authoritative? That is, is the Bhudda considered a man like other men, or are his teachings held to be a higher authority than the opinions of common men?
At the risk of oversimplifying, no. He's considered to be the most recent guy who figured out from scratch how to live free from suffering, so we take his advice as coming from a guy who knows what he's talking about. But the Buddha himself said never to believe things simply because because they were part of some scripture, nor because one admired the teacher, but rather because experience shows them to lead to good results. Likewise, there's the famous koan, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" (attributed to Lin Chi, 9th c.) -- meaning that one cannot progress in one's spirituality while clinging to teachings instead of practice.
|
|
But don't his teachings remain both constant and, to some extent, authoritative? That is, is the Bhudda considered a man like other men, or are his teachings held to be a higher authority than the opinions of common men?At the risk of oversimplifying, no. He's considered to be the most recent guy who figured out from scratch how to live free from suffering, so we take his advice as coming from a guy who knows what he's talking about. But the Buddha himself said never to believe things simply because because they were part of some scripture, nor because one admired the teacher, but rather because experience shows them to lead to good results. Likewise, there's the famous koan, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" (attributed to Lin Chi, 9th c.) -- meaning that one cannot progress in one's spirituality while clinging to teachings instead of practice.
Either that of Lin Chi really hated the Bhudda for some reason. ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
What if religion evolves like species? Maybe the Hebrews were doing something different because the leaders recognized it as 'better' (less meaner if you do not want to get into qualifying what is good) and made up their own take on god.
God is a moving target. Man created him to explain what he did not understand. As man gains understanding, god must be moved to one, explain the new apparent contradiction and two, explain things we do not understand in the new context.
There's no doubt that men created a number of religions to pass stories or explain where fire came from and such, but in the case of the Hebrew God, there's a lot of merit to a different perspective.
The testimony of the Bible is that God handed knowledge, language and law to his people. It is historically accurate, and geographically factual. We know all that. Now, you might not believe God led them as a pillar of fire or crafted the commandments in the presence of Moses, you might argue that those facts are made to give the Hebrew law more authority or make God seem real, but their society was definitely crafted by these rapidly defined religious beliefs, rather than a series of stories beng handed down to illustrate culture. By that I mean, stories of Moses were not passed down orally for generations and then finally recorded once the alphabet developed. The books that describe Moses' life were written by Moses, ultimately finished by his successor (tough for Moses to write about his own death).
Now, Moses did have to write about everything that came before him, but he traces a detailed lineage and claims the presence of God at work in his people from the beginning. This is not true of other religions - they develop a system of belief and a number influential scriptures, but do not claim an eyewitness account of a single real God.
So obviously, we have the capacity to create a religion (Xenu saves!), but the development of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are radically different in their development. You might not think that lends them any credibility over other religions, but the differences are worth noting for any good student.
|
|
...As far as I can tell, most societal experiments which contained as part of their first principles, "no religion," have failed within a couple of generations...
If you mean countries with communist governments or systems where atheism is state policy, then the problem there is twofold--first, more people, generally speaking, want religion; second, those state systems simply replaced a supernatural authority with a temporal one, like Juche in the DPRK or Mao in China.
If you mean community experiments from the 60s and 70s ("Hippy Communes"), then the problem is that the average community member was specifically looking for "something missing" in their lives, whether it was spiritual or humanist, or were there as a simple act of rebellion--again, they were replacing one authority for another.
Psychologically, there's likely more people who need religiosity; socially, there might be argument against its need as a motivator of species-maintenance. This is to say, now, laws and rationalization offer the same (or better--since secular law, for example, generally doesn't allow for burning witches or stoning homosexuals) continuance of the species that religion once ensured. These are TJ's thoughts, by the way.
So, here's a chicken-egg question--which came first, law-vis-religion, or law-vis-speciation? (which is my second question from earlier in the thread, restated)
|
|
Andrew, I was talking mostly about towns in which the founder of the community based the community on the principle of "no religion." There have been several such attempts in the Americas in the last two hundred years. (Edit: the town of Liberal, MO is the first example I could google but I have heard of some others)
And from a Christian perspective - we believe God established Law and Religion (and Marriage) at the same time. One might as well ask whether man breathed or ate first - to us the question is entirely rhetorical.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
When a Christian tells another person, "I am worried about your soul," I wonder if the non-believer does not often hear - "I am worried about your morals." Which is not quite what we mean at all.
When a Christian tells another person, "I am worried about your soul," I wonder if the non-believer does not often hear - "I am worried about your morals." Which is not quite what we mean at all.
An important distinction between what Christians believe and what many assume Christians believe. If I look at someone and wonder if they're a Christian, it isn't because I get membership points for proselytizing. And I certainly didn't choose Christianity because I wanted guilt over my vocabulary or felt the need to restrict myself to one woman my whole life (I could have done a better job with both).
Any religion, including having no religion, feels it has a monopoly on truth. A Christian believes there is a real heaven and hell, and a real enemy. He believes God planned in advance to save us from our deliberate separation of him. If I worry about a soul, it's less from the perspective that 'if you don't join my religion, you're going to hell', and more from the belief that I am one beggar telling another where to find bread. I believe there is Truth to be had, and when I went looking for truth, I didn't find it in massaged science or in biased media reporting, or even in the words of a lot of so-called Christians. I found it in the Bible. Specifically, I learned that the Bible included knowledge no one had at the time. Before folks knew about bacteria, they were led by God to cook their food a certain way. I learned that when the world hadn't even entertained the idea of the world being round, the book of Isaiah refers to God sitting above the 'sphere of the earth'. And I learned that when copies of Scriptures stored away from the world for a very long time were discovered, they were (essentially) the same as documents that had been translated over and over again without that copy (making the Dead Sea Scrolls a kind of tanslation control group). I didn't get saved because oif these detials, but I began to believe the Bible merited some respected and later study.
Of course, no one comes to God without Him first coming to them. In the end, I became Christian because I was stripped of my reasons for rejection, and because His spirit convicted me to believe (this is not intended to create a discussion of election vs choice..that's a different talk, and not one that I'm fully prepared for these last few weeks). If I share my faith with someone else, it is not because I want them to see things my way, but because my way was interrupted (and subsequently abandoned) by a search for truth.
Hope the distinction is clear. There are good people who are not Christians, but the nature of the world is such that goodness cannot save us from imperfection. I have great friends (some of you, in fact) who do not believe as I do, but that doesn't mean they aren't people of reason or integrity. The Bible makes it clear the issue has never been one of goodness. There are good Buddhists and good muslims just as sure as there are wicked "Christians". To us, the issue is your relationship with God and your acknowledgement of the deity and resurrection of Christ. I didn't choose to know God this way, God chose this way for me to know God, and insists it happens on His terms.
Hey, last thing. I wholly support the idea that belief in creationism necessitates a respect for creation. However, I submit that there are many billions of dollars invested in the present environmental discussion, and that we should all take care when choosing which facts we believe. Just as some might accuse me of closing my eyes and choosing to ignore the plight of the world, perhaps the frequent insistence of a number of lawyers and celebrities does not actually make their claims about the end of the world true.
Maybe, just maybe, He has the whole world in His hands.
Any religion, including having no religion, feels it has a monopoly on truth.
I don't think there's such as thing as 'no religion', but given that everyone either has a religion or no religion, your assertion here is basically that people are inherently hubristic. I disagree. My own personal religion (secular, doubt-based, pluralistic, syncretism) rejects the notion that anyone, anywhere has a monopoly on truth. (That which could be described as being omniscient can't rightly be called an "anyone".)
Thanks for the link! My wife and I just finished watching the "atheist lives with Christian family" episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days. The Christian husband says the same thing that all my Christian friends do: "How can a person possibly have any morals if they don't believe in God?"
I think these sorts of comments come from my Christian brothers and Sisters who have just enough 'understanding' of the issues to be dangerous.
The 'real' assumption behind the statement is generally one of authority. They are raising the issue of where does the authority for determining what is good and what is bad come from? Absent some authoritative voice, what defines what is right and what is wrong?
But because neither the Christian doesn't really understand the whole issue, they go straight from 'no authority' to say therefore they have no morals. When really they are trying (or should be) to try and challenge the atheist about where the standards for their existing morals actually come from. What basis do they have to declare something right and something wrong?
What basis do they have to declare something right and something wrong?
As I said, long-term empirical usefulness goes a long way. Screw someone over today, and it maybe seems like a good strategy to someone short-sighted, if they get away with it this time. But we live in a society, and in the long term, use of those tactics is always uncovered, and leads to more woe than it's worth. Helping others, on the other hand, reaps dividends far more often than it doesn't.
In practice, though, this method of judging requires you to be alert for the consequences of your actions, and to carefully observe over the long term. It's a lot more difficult than just memorizing something out of a book, although ultimately it leads to mostly the same conclusions. And it cuts across cultures: the Buddha, Lao Tsu, and Jesus Christ came to many of the same conclusions. I'd guess that simple game theory can model a lot of this.
Some of my Christian friends have told me that I have no morals, that what I've described is low, self-serving pragmatism only, and that THEY were the ones who were truly virtuous because they knew that morals came from God. Interestingly, though, from my observations, claiming to be a moral authority has a strong positive correlation with committing immoral acts (immoral by Christian standards and by pragmatic ones both).
Hmmm...for my part, I believe religion once played a huge role in both passing down survival behavior, and in providing the authority to require compliance. I also believe that we've outgrown it, and that it comes with some nasty side effects, both in terms of unintended additions, and the persistence of behavior long beyond the point where it's survival value has lapsed.
I'm an atheist. Humans are social animals. It is in my best interest to treat others as I wish to be treated, both on a micro scale (my immediate circle), and a macro scale (society does better if we all behave).*
I'm honestly quite bothered by this idea that morals have to come from a higher power; frankly, it is insulting and degrading to humanity, not to mention a stunning failure to accept responsiblity. We don't exactly have to live with the consequences of our actions if God told us to do it, do we?
I have also noticed those whose behavior is most at odds with their professed moral code tend to be the ones who insist I'm amoral(Yes, it's amusing). I once had a devout christian call me a terrible person for dropping out of a D&D game (violating a social contract), only to discover shortly thereafter that he was cheating on his wife. So much for letting he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh?
* Edit: Something interesting just occurred to me. The people who insist we can't rely on self-interest to govern our moral behavior are often the same people who insist self-interest is the only thing we can rely on to govern our economic behavior. Huh?