|
U-Know! Forum » God V Science (again) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 14:16
|
||
|
"There are some religions, or people within religions, that don't bother with trying to extrapolate where we came from (genesis, evolution) or where we're 'going', they just concentrate on putting a philosophy into practice here and now." That'll be a big proportion of the congregation and clergy of the Church of England then! I'm sure a lot of them find all this supernatural stuff a bit of an embarrassment and would be much more comfortable just sticking with Love thy Neighbour. Let's face it, for all but the less educated, Darwin screwed the message up forever and the church has never managed to put it together adequately, even to their own satisfaction. You can tell - even people as clever as bishops tend to squirm under close questioning.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 14:22
|
||
|
Indeed. And it's fair to say that there are some religious folk that are actually LESS flaky in their assertions about 'truth' than some supposedly 'scientific' types. Give me R.A.Wilson's 'maybe' logic anyday. It might seem like a fence-sitters philosophy to the impatient, but it's irrefutable in it's ambivalence.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 14:30
|
||
|
"The only thing that the fundy maniacs REALLY believe is that they are 'tight with the lord', and the rest of us are not. And like with the extremist interpretations of the Koran (it's OK to sin as long as it's against an unbeliever), incredibly self-serving and indefensible from an objective point of view." Don't condemn them Dave. They are merely conforming with Darwin's predictions, ensuring their ways prevail and therefore Tribe Fundi survives! If the bombs drop we'll all go Fundi in the ruins - if we want to survive, that is. Evolution moves in mysterious ways but it always throws up nasty bastards as winners. Ironic really, when the Fundis believe God's plan is the precise opposite!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 14:34
|
||
Mmmm ambivalence!
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 15:20
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Don't condemn them Dave. They are merely conforming with Darwin's predictions, ensuring their ways prevail and therefore Tribe Fundi survives! If the bombs drop we'll all go Fundi in the ruins - if we want to survive, that is. Evolution moves in mysterious ways but it always throws up nasty bastards as winners. Ironic really, when the Fundis believe God's plan is the precise opposite! That's not even close to being true, nigelswift. It's based on thinking that's at least 50 years out of date. Gregory Bateson (my current intellectual hero :) points out that in fact the basic unit of survival is not the organism (or even the gene) but is in fact "organism in environment" and that when viewed through that lens it's clear that cooperative ecosystems tend to be far better at adapting to adverse change than competitive ones. In reality evolution has many many facets, and to reduce it to a single slogan; "survival of the fittest" or "always throws up nasty bastards as winners" isn't merely failing to see the whole picture, but is in fact quite wrong.
|
|||
vince 1628 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 16:05
|
||
|
Excellent thread and dialogue, chaps. Creationism is a big deal down here in the deep south and in order to keep a certain peace I have learned to keep my opinions to myself so's not to offend anyone. What I see here on HH is people willing to openly discuss their beliefs in a respectful & intelligent manner....Which is several steps on from the rest of the world. There are many out there that could learn a lot from this kind of discussion... Bravo...
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 16:20
|
||
|
"it's clear that cooperative ecosystems tend to be far better at adapting to adverse change than competitive ones. In reality evolution has many many facets, and to reduce it to a single slogan; "survival of the fittest" or "always throws up nasty bastards as winners" isn't merely failing to see the whole picture, but is in fact quite wrong." Yes, I accept the rapped knuckles, "always throws up nasty bastards as winners" was too simplistic, though a hell of a good line ;) On the other hand, your own line "evolution has many many facets" suggests that social co-operation isn't the only way it operates either. There are plenty of species that have lasted for aeons on the basis of solitary existences. Equally, while social co-operation might be observed to aid species survival in the face of environmental change in many instances, survival of the fittest can play a part even in those species. Put a pack of co-operative wolves on an island, reduce the food supply, and it's the unco-operative bastard that remains to pass his character on.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Sep 17, 2008, 16:45
Sep 17, 2008, 16:44
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Yes, I accept the rapped knuckles, "always throws up nasty bastards as winners" was too simplistic, though a hell of a good line ;) It is a good line. I wouldn't have bothered objecting to it if it hadn't been so catchy ;) nigelswift wrote: On the other hand, your own line "evolution has many many facets" suggests that social co-operation isn't the only way it operates either. There are plenty of species that have lasted for aeons on the basis of solitary existences. Evolution does indeed have many facets, and there are clearly plenty of examples where "social co-operation" has proven less successful in some senses or from certain perspectives, than aggressive competition. But if -- as I suggested earlier -- Bateson's model of ecological systems is accurate, as I believe it to be, then the whole notion of a species living "a solitary existence" is called into question. If the unit of survival -- in evolutionary terms -- is "organism in environment" then we need to reassess a huge amount of our thinking on this issue Bateson is, in my opinion, the single most important writer on the subject of ecology and sustainability, though very few people have read him... in part because he's quite a 'difficult' writer, but also because he tackles the subject from so many unexpected angles that it's often hard to know exactly what he's writing about. His theory of "mind" for example (which is at the heart of the thesis I'm soon to submit) is radically different to almost any that came before it. One person has suggested that Bateson's "ecology of mind" may well be the single most subversive idea in the last 100 years. Perhaps the most important thing to take from that theory is the notion that it is literally impossible to draw a line between "individual" and "species", between "individual" and "environment" or between "species" and "environment. And while such distinctions are useful for many many reasons, they are ultimately an illusion. So when I talk of co-operative ecosystems, I'm not restricting myself to talk of "social co-operation". In fact, a co-operative ecosystem may well contains a number of competitive aspects. My point is simply that to speak of evolution as a species Vs species process which will throw up a nasty bastard as a winner (or even a compassionate co-operator as a winner)... or to see it as an individual trait Vs individual trait process within a single species that will throw up "nastiness" (or co-operation) as the winner, is to see less than half the picture.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 16:46
|
||
|
stray wrote: so your definition of the soul is ?? See the previous post: "what was being discussed was the soul as commonly described by many Christians. That part of you that survives physical death, the bit that sits before the Lord in the afterlife and receives judgement according to your performance in your worldly life." That's incompatible with evolution theory.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 16:53
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: stray wrote: Emotion = soul, to put it simply...Yes I'm joking, but just showing how not only it's philosophically possible to argue for the existence of the soul No it's not. It's redefining the word so that it fits something we can't deny. Of course there is emotion, so to say 'emotion=soul' means we all have to concede the existence of a soul. I could similarly say that respiration=soul and you'd all have to agree. However, what was being discussed was the soul as commonly described by many Christians. That part of you that survives physical death, the bit that sits before the Lord in the afterlife and receives judgement according to your performance in your worldly life. That definition (which billions of people subscribe to) is incompatible with evolution for the reasons previously given. We agree on a lot of stuff Merrick, but not this. Philosophically there is no reason why the soul could not be a property of self-awareness. That's just one example out of many, and I provide it because it comes quite close to my own view. I recommend you read some James Hillman (he's a post-Jungian psychoanalyst) if you want to explore this particular idea some more.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
