Theistic Evolution?

[reggieM]

If you define infinity as a number that is sufficiently large to ensure that you don’t have to worry that it might be larger still then the problem goes away. That works for all mathematical Physics models of reality.

This is semantics as I see it.

Infinity cannot be defined as being “sufficiently large” since it cannot be compared with anything.

But if this definition works for you, then feel free to substitute it for the one I gave for God.

God is a being sufficiently great enough to ensure that you don’t have to worry that He might be greater.

You can substitute the word “perfect” for the term “greater” as well.

I am not without hope, I am not in despair, many of my desires and aspirations have been fulfilled, I see justice all around. I am very happy and content.

I would like to see the scientific evidence for this.

 

[emotel]

This is semantics as I see it.

Infinity cannot be defined as being “sufficiently large” since it cannot be compared with anything.

Not so. A distance that is say, 1,000,000,000 times the diameter of the universe is quite large enough for most of mathematical physics. For molecular biology and microelectronisc it is distinct over kill and the diameter of the Earth is perfectly acceptable.

I would like to see the scientific evidence for this.

Well you have been kind enough to read some of it and comment on it. I hope you see an easy-going interested person behind my posts and not someone in despair who has given up hope.

If you saw me playing with my Grandson, riding one of my Daughter’s horses, bombing round a track in a go-kart or laughing and joking with my friends down the pub then you would get a better picture still.

I even use occasionally.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

Well you have been kind enough to read some of it and comment on it. I hope you see an easy-going interested person behind my posts and not someone in despair who has given up hope.

If you saw me playing with my Grandson, riding one of my Daughter’s horses, bombing round a track in a go-kart or laughing and joking with my friends down the pub then you would get a better picture still.

I even use occasionally.

Emotel.

I found your reply difficult to understand given your many previous posts. Yes, certainly I have seen a friendly person and the fact that you use 's is unusual for those who share your views, so that is acknowledged and appreciated.

But what I find odd in your reply here is that your rigorous demand for scientific evidence in other matters (especially regarding God) seems to have been waived here and you’re appealing to my subjective judgement or perhaps intuition about who you are.

I will hold off on asking about the nature of your hope because I want to go back to your previous comments. Additionally, I was talking about nihilism in general terms – the message that it communicates.

Because such reports are notoriously incompatible, that is surely evidence that humans have a tendency to believe things that are not true in the external world.

I could apply this to the previous point. You claim to be happy and content and that you have hope. But since humans have a tendency to believe things that are not true …

Something in us clearly lives on in a different sense but our consciousness does not.

Could you explain that further? What lives on and why do you say “clearly” it does?

During my Catholic years I was quite disturbed by the after life. This was because the penalty for getting the entry conditions wrong was said to be so severe and the rules were so vague.

I haven’t found that, myself. But I do hear the same thing said by other former-Catholics. I wouldn’t dismiss it, but I would also encourage a second look at Catholicism as well. There may have been some preachers or church leaders that exaggerated things and gave an inaccurate picture of the faith.

What could be worse that an eternity in hell? What if the Protestants were right or the Muslims or the Hindus?

I think this site is a great place to ask those kinds of questions. But just in simple terms, God does reward any person’s search for the truth. Someone, through no fault of his own who seeks the truth but does not find the Catholic faith is received by God also. This is invincible ignorance – but it means that the person didn’t deceive himself or ignore evidence that God provided.

How could I be happy forever in paradise knowing that many of my earthly friends and family were burning in the other place?

You have to remember that things will be different then.

1. You will want only what God wants - his justice and mercy
2. Those who are lost will be so through their own choice
3. Those who are lost do not want to be with God
4. You will realize that everything in your life was a gift - including your friends and family.

Then I came to realise that I didn’t control what I believed and that it would be a sin to pretend that I did. That made me happy and content again and I could get on with the task of making something of my life. A task that I have enjoyed enormously.

I would agree that you don’t necessarily control what you believe, but you do control where you direct your attention and what you want in life. If you encounter questions about God and eternity that are unresolved – it’s important to pursue them as much as possible.

If I find myself standing before God my conscience is clear. I don’t control what I believe because I am honest and honesty is a virtue.

I couldn’t deny that or argue at all. If your conscience is clear, then that’s a blessing and you’d have nothing to worry about. If you’re truly honest with yourself (this is something difficult to fully determine) – then that is what is required.

But I’d just say that it’s very risky and subject to change. Temptations can come on all of us.

The evidence controls my model of reality and God created that evidence.

Again, I couldn’t argue with that. Life is a search and a journey. If the evidence for the right path to take does not present itself, then we have to walk by faith.

But as above, it takes real honesty and vigilance. We can discover that events of life caused us to avoid important considerations, or to avoid really looking at the evidence that is there in front of us.

I’m not saying that has happened with you, but that it is very common. It shows up in the moral life mainly.

I’ll add that the other problem is maintaining a true moral standard and not being deceived by something that “seems good” but which really isn’t.

 

[emotel]

I found your reply difficult to understand given your many previous posts. Yes, certainly I have seen a friendly person and the fact that you use 's is unusual for those who share your views, so that is acknowledged and appreciated.

But what I find odd in your reply here is that your rigorous demand for scientific evidence in other matters (especially regarding God) seems to have been waived here and you’re appealing to my subjective judgement or perhaps intuition about who you are.

I see no departure from the scientific perspective in that? I read your posts and it is clear to me that you are a thoughtful and intelligent person who is also really rather nice. The fact that I make a subjective judgement there is not, in any way, “unscientific”. Quite the contrary the fact that we both know that subjective judgements can mislead is, in itself, a scientific conclusion and we can both compensate accordingly if we consider that necessary.

I will hold off on asking about the nature of your hope because I want to go back to your previous comments. Additionally, I was talking about nihilism in general terms – the message that it communicates.

I am very concerned about the “message” that Christianity communicates and we should compare these messages so as to be better able to see ourselves as others see us.

I could apply this to the previous point. You claim to be happy and content and that you have hope. But since humans have a tendency to believe things that are not true …

Yes but that isn’t all that people do and it is only a “Tendency”. Galileo showed us the way here. He founded the scientific method and insisted that we need to recognise our subjective tendencies and insulate our enquiry into how reality works against them. It was a great idea and it gave us our modern world.

Could you explain that further? What lives on and why do you say “clearly” it does?

St Augustine said :“Memory - that faculty of the Soul”.

We now live in the information age and we have machines with memory capabilities and neuroscientists are close to discovering how our brains retain information. So we have reason to suppose that St Augustine was wrong and that our memories are just information stored in a biological machine.

Information is not a “physical substance”. When we post here, information passes from our brains to the server where it is made available to other brains. You are reading this and my thoughts are entering your brain but nothing physical has been transported from my brain to yours. If we both died the server would still retain our posts ( at least for a while ) so, since our thoughts are an essential part of our being - of who we are - that part of us would clearly live on.

I haven’t found that, myself. But I do hear the same thing said by other former-Catholics. I wouldn’t dismiss it, but I would also encourage a second look at Catholicism as well. There may have been some preachers or church leaders that exaggerated things and gave an inaccurate picture of the faith.

I have been taking periodic “second looks” for many years. My presence here is one of them.

I think this site is a great place to ask those kinds of questions. But just in simple terms, God does reward any person’s search for the truth. Someone, through no fault of his own who seeks the truth but does not find the Catholic faith is received by God also. This is invincible ignorance – but it means that the person didn’t deceive himself or ignore evidence that God provided.

Yes this site is impressive in many ways but disturbing in others

Can an ex-Catholic who received 15 years of Catholic education as a child and was a server at many a mass claim “invincible ignorance”? Doesn’t seem likely to me and Lumen Gentium(14) seems to agree.

You have to remember that things will be different then.

1. You will want only what God wants - his justice and mercy
2. Those who are lost will be so through their own choice
3. Those who are lost do not want to be with God
4. You will realize that everything in your life was a gift - including your friends and family.

That’s part of the “message” of Christianity that concerns me. There is a distinct “anti-family” component there that makes me think of:

**Luke 14:26 **"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

I can understand why the early Christians under Roman cruelty and repression would want to believe that this life is not important because the afterlife will be so good. The 9/11 terrorists had the same view.

I have spoken at length with Christians who believe that the second coming is immanent. They tell their children that they needn’t bother with their studies because the world is going to end “real soon now”.

Is see abandonment of hope and a rejection of the gift of life in that. It concerns me deeply.

As a child, I raised these and other issues with my Catholic teachers and they reacted with shock exclaiming “Don’t think like that!” When I asked “Why not?” I was told “Because it comes to the wrong answer”. I later found that “thinking like that” ( i.e. logically and expecting things to make sense) worked wonders in my career as a Mathematical Physicist.

I would agree that you don’t necessarily control what you believe, but you do control where you direct your attention and what you want in life. If you encounter questions about God and eternity that are unresolved – it’s important to pursue them as much as possible.

That’s why I’m here.

I couldn’t deny that or argue at all. If your conscience is clear, then that’s a blessing and you’d have nothing to worry about. If you’re truly honest with yourself (this is something difficult to fully determine) – then that is what is required.

But I’d just say that it’s very risky and subject to change. Temptations can come on all of us.

I feel a need to dissuade people from flying aircraft into sky scrapers, from telling kids not to bother with their homework and from abandoning hope and interest in this life generally. That feels right at both the subjective and objective levels to me.

I see Bird-flu and AIDS as very serious problems that can only be solved by scientisted who understand the theory of biological evolution. Consequently, misrepresentation and suppression of that science is a very dangerous game and an abdication of our responsibility for the world.

Again, I couldn’t argue with that. Life is a search and a journey. If the evidence for the right path to take does not present itself, then we have to walk by faith.

But as above, it takes real honesty and vigilance. We can discover that events of life caused us to avoid important considerations, or to avoid really looking at the evidence that is there in front of us

I’m not saying that has happened with you, but that it is very common. It shows up in the moral life mainly.

I’ll add that the other problem is maintaining a true moral standard and not being deceived by something that “seems good” but which really isn’t.

I assume that you don’t, by that, mean religion.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

I am very concerned about the “message” that Christianity communicates and we should compare these messages so as to be better able to see ourselves as others see us.

As I said, I see atheistic nihilism as a philosophy lacking hope. I do not see how it can establish or maintain moral standards. In other words, any human (or inhuman) action can be justified. I see it as illogical and suicidal. It cannot develop true gratitude or appreciation because it is oriented towards one’s self. It’s also built on Christian assumptions and minus those, left to it’s own inner logic and spirit, it is despairing and nihilisitic in action.

If we both died the server would still retain our posts ( at least for a while ) so, since our thoughts are an essential part of our being - of who we are - that part of us would clearly live on.

Ok, the notion that the objects or thoughts created by a person are evidence that the person himself “is living” after death is stretching the point beyond reason. Those billions who did not write or produce anything that exists today would then, supposedly, not have this “afterlife”.

Can an ex-Catholic who received 15 years of Catholic education as a child and was a server at many a mass claim “invincible ignorance”?

I don’t know and I can’t judge that. It depends on when and where you were instructed – among other factors that I couldn’t or wouldn’t try to evaluate.

That’s part of the “message” of Christianity that concerns me. There is a distinct “anti-family” component there that makes me think of:

I hope you will think of the 4th Commandment as well.

I can understand why the early Christians under Roman cruelty and repression would want to believe that this life is not important because the afterlife will be so good.

The point you’re missing here is that the afterlife will only be “so good” for those who respect life and believe that life is important indeed.

I have spoken at length with Christians who believe that the second coming is immanent. They tell their children that they needn’t bother with their studies because the world is going to end “real soon now”.

It sounds like you’re looking for reasons to criticize Protestant Christianity. You might want to speak “at length” with some orthodox Catholic priests or theologians.

Is see abandonment of hope and a rejection of the gift of life in that. It concerns me deeply.

Again, those who “reject life” through suicide, self-mutilation, self-destructive immoral behavior, murder, abortion, gluttony and other things – will not inherit “eternal life” which is the fulfillment of the glimpse of life we have here on earth.

As a child, I raised these and other issues with my Catholic teachers and they reacted with shock exclaiming “Don’t think like that!” When I asked “Why not?” I was told “Because it comes to the wrong answer”.

Your comments are of the kind that I see often among ex-Catholics or dissenting Catholics. I shouldn’t underestimate the impact of things that happened when people were children. This is very common to hear. “When I was a child, Sister told me …”

That’s a pretty standard introduction into the reason why a person no longer holds the Catholic Faith. Normally, I would suggest that the person needs to develop some distance from childhood and not evaluate and judge the Catholic Church based on experiences as a child 40 years ago. As I said before, it’s likely that you experienced a narrow slice of Catholic life – not the whole picture and not an accurate picture.

I later found that “thinking like that” ( i.e. logically and expecting things to make sense) worked wonders in my career as a Mathematical Physicist.

I’ve noticed that you’re seeking understandings that are not paradoxical or contradictory. Normally, this will work well, especially in things like Mathematics. The teachings of Jesus though point out that the world (and the human life in it) is built on paradoxes.

I feel a need to dissuade people from flying aircraft into sky scrapers

I think you should be spending time on Muslim sites then. I haven’t seen the need for that kind of argumentation from the Catholics here.

from telling kids not to bother with their homework and from abandoning hope and interest in this life generally.

I’d be interested in your reasons why kids should not abandon hope.

I see Bird-flu and AIDS as very serious problems that can only be solved by scientisted who understand the theory of biological evolution.

I posted a quote from a biologist that disagrees with your conclusion. As he said, Darwinian theory is unnecessary in the work of analyzing bacteria and viruses. He did an informal survey of other scientists and they agreed.

Consequently, misrepresentation and suppression of that science is a very dangerous game and an abdication of our responsibility for the world.

Where did this “responsibility” come from? Who is it that holds you “responsible for the world”? Why should anyone care about what happens to the world? What are the consequences for not caring?

I assume that you don’t, by that, mean religion.

I mean anything that is an apparent good, but not a real good. How could I accept that every religious expression is true?

 

[Camron]

Of course the human mind can conceive of things greater than itself but the greatness of what it can conceive is clearly limited. If a greater source reveals great things then the human mind could do bettter but there would still be a limit to the ability of the mind to comprehend what was being revealed.

My point was that if, as was stated, “God” was was ***defined ***to be the greatest thing that the human mind could conceive of then that God would be limited by the capabilities of the human mind.

Again, I don’t really see the point of what you’re saying. God is not limited by our imagination, even if God is the greatest thing we can envision.

That isn’t what history seems to be telling us.

No doubt that the Ancient Egyptians worshipped many gods and the Hindus still do. I’m talking about a degradation of worship. You’re only going back to around 1500 BC but I’m talking, overall going back much further, like to 4000 BC and 3500 BC for example.

Actually, this is the history you need to read…

But Moses was given commandments by God and the very first one is:

“I am the Lord thy God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!”

Doesn’t that signify that the worship of many different Gods was common practice?

Yes, which is what God, through Moses, said was wrong.

Similarities in Primitive Beliefs in an All-Powerful God

That list fits well with the concept of “attribute saturation” that I mentioned earlier.

But it fits better with “attribute deterioration”, given the evidence for the most primitive “Sky Gods” having qualities like the God of Judaism, Islam, and, most especially, Christianity.

Given that the prominence and significance of the sun was a common factor as was the need for some explanation of existence and the need to feel protected and loved by an entity with the power over what we now know to be natural forces, some convergent evolution in the concepts of God is perhaps to be expected.

But the prominence of the Sun has nothing to do with these Sky Gods. They are all proclaimed as always existing before anything else, including the Sun, even existed. I’m not sure what you’re pointing out on this. Anyway, I think you are displaying a common error (in my opinion) of applying evolutionary processes to something that didn’t actually evolve (much like the errors of Evolutionary Psychology, Social Darwinism, etc.).

It’s true that life evolved in my opinion. But trying to superimpose the theory of evolution over the emergence of Monotheism is applying the theory of evolution in the wrong direction. Religion did not evolve. True religion was revealed from God Himself.

Anyway, you seem to be having a very good conversation with Reggie. If you want to discuss more about primitive monotheism just send me a private message. If I have more time I might even talk about it in another thread if you wish.

Thanks.

 

[edwest2]

I see no departure from the scientific perspective in that? I read your posts and it is clear to me that you are a thoughtful and intelligent person who is also really rather nice. The fact that I make a subjective judgement there is not, in any way, “unscientific”. Quite the contrary the fact that we both know that subjective judgements can mislead is, in itself, a scientific conclusion and we can both compensate accordingly if we consider that necessary.

I am very concerned about the “message” that Christianity communicates and we should compare these messages so as to be better able to see ourselves as others see us.

Yes but that isn’t all that people do and it is only a “Tendency”. Galileo showed us the way here. He founded the scientific method and insisted that we need to recognise our subjective tendencies and insulate our enquiry into how reality works against them. It was a great idea and it gave us our modern world.

St Augustine said :“Memory - that faculty of the Soul”.

We now live in the information age and we have machines with memory capabilities and neuroscientists are close to discovering how our brains retain information. So we have reason to suppose that St Augustine was wrong and that our memories are just information stored in a biological machine.

Information is not a “physical substance”. When we post here, information passes from our brains to the server where it is made available to other brains. You are reading this and my thoughts are entering your brain but nothing physical has been transported from my brain to yours. If we both died the server would still retain our posts ( at least for a while ) so, since our thoughts are an essential part of our being - of who we are - that part of us would clearly live on.

I have been taking periodic “second looks” for many years. My presence here is one of them.

Yes this site is impressive in many ways but disturbing in others

Can an ex-Catholic who received 15 years of Catholic education as a child and was a server at many a mass claim “invincible ignorance”? Doesn’t seem likely to me and Lumen Gentium(14) seems to agree.

That’s part of the “message” of Christianity that concerns me. There is a distinct “anti-family” component there that makes me think of:

I can understand why the early Christians under Roman cruelty and repression would want to believe that this life is not important because the afterlife will be so good. The 9/11 terrorists had the same view.

I have spoken at length with Christians who believe that the second coming is immanent. They tell their children that they needn’t bother with their studies because the world is going to end “real soon now”.

Is see abandonment of hope and a rejection of the gift of life in that. It concerns me deeply.

As a child, I raised these and other issues with my Catholic teachers and they reacted with shock exclaiming “Don’t think like that!” When I asked “Why not?” I was told “Because it comes to the wrong answer”. I later found that “thinking like that” ( i.e. logically and expecting things to make sense) worked wonders in my career as a Mathematical Physicist.

That’s why I’m here.

I feel a need to dissuade people from flying aircraft into sky scrapers, from telling kids not to bother with their homework and from abandoning hope and interest in this life generally. That feels right at both the subjective and objective levels to me.

I see Bird-flu and AIDS as very serious problems that can only be solved by scientisted who understand the theory of biological evolution. Consequently, misrepresentation and suppression of that science is a very dangerous game and an abdication of our responsibility for the world.

I assume that you don’t, by that, mean religion.

Emotel.

Sadly, you are an ideologue. You played the muslim terrorist card. Do you think all Christians are out to harm people?

Your insistence on presenting life as purely an outgrowth of matter denies your own existence. You and your thoughts are byproducts of matter, stored in your genes, nothing more. There are some animals that live 100 years. How are you different from a lemur? As a biological robot, your thoughts and interactions are essentially predetermined, any feelings, positive or negative, are just neurons firing based on preprogrammed genetics.

I would encourage you to avoid generalizations about groups of people that say ‘they are all like that.’ Even siblings in the same family group show differences in behavior.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

I can understand why the early Christians under Roman cruelty and repression would want to believe that this life is not important because the afterlife will be so good. The 9/11 terrorists had the same view.

No they didn’t. :nope:

The early Christians believed they were going to be with Jesus in heaven. The 9/11 terrorists probably believed they were going to some kind of paradise where they could marry many virgin wives to which they could have something like a divine orgy.

Also, the early Christians under Roman cruelty did not resort to violence. They certainly didn’t try to rampage through the Roman Empire because of the cruelty and accusations laid against them either. :nope:

There’s a big difference between one being willing to die for their faith and one being willing to fly a plane through a world trade center building. And if you honestly don’t see this difference, then shame on you. :tsktsk:

If you’re going to make analogies you can at least make an effort to move beyond these kinds of blatantly obscene theological comparisons. The various definitions of “paradise” can be radically different from one “religion” to another—even within denominations of Christianity for that matter.

 

[emotel]

As I said, I see atheistic nihilism as a philosophy lacking hope.

Well, technically, “nihilism” is, by definition of the term, a “philosophy lacking hope” so I’m not one of those and I don’t define my position by what it isn’t. I am a Humanist.

I do not see how it can establish or maintain moral standards. In other words, any human (or inhuman) action can be justified. I see it as illogical and suicidal. It cannot develop true gratitude or appreciation because it is oriented towards one’s self. It’s also built on Christian assumptions and minus those, left to it’s own inner logic and spirit, it is despairing and nihilisitic in action.

Hmmm… maybe atheistic nihilism is all of those things but Humanism most certainly isn’t and the good 'ole theory of biological evolution explains why:

Humans evolved to occupy an “evolutionary niche” that no other species occupies. We are not particularly strong, we cannot fly or move fast, we cannot live under water, we can’t even climb trees any more and we have very small families and very long childhoods. That would seem to put us as at a serious disadvantage in a world ruled by the law of the jungle. However, we have capabilities that all other species lack. Our evolutionary investment has been in communication and co-operation and it is these that - to coin a phrase - got us to where we are today.

Our large brains are the result of a gene-culture co-evolutionary period of 2-3 million years in which our brains “ballooned” relative to other species. Our ability to communicate allowed us to accumulate, as a species, knowledge and skill and pass them on to the next generation. Our ability to co-operate enabled us to “divide and conquer” via the division of labour and the development of diverse specialist skills. We invented “civilisation” on that basis.

In adapting us the this niche, evolution has equipped us with morality - a strong sense of right and wrong. We need to trust and to be trusted if we are to co-operate effectively. We need to be able to weed out the cheats and to reward the good guys. Our large brains continue to grow after birth and our long childhoods’ are only possible if we love, cherish, protect and provide for our families. Evolution has not only equipped us to be able to do that, it has equipped us to ***WANT ***to do it and to be rewarded for doing it.

Humanists understand and value that evolutionary legacy and they respond to the responsibilities that it brings with it. I have never met an Atheist nihilist so I can’t speculate on how they see things.

Ok, the notion that the objects or thoughts created by a person are evidence that the person himself “is living” after death is stretching the point beyond reason. Those billions who did not write or produce anything that exists today would then, supposedly, not have this “afterlife”.

No, the person - i.e. their consciousness does not continue to live but some things that originated in their brains do so in the way that I described. Those that do not write still talk to friends and family and they are remembered for that, sometime very vividly in dreams and hallucinations.

I don’t know and I can’t judge that. It depends on when and where you were instructed – among other factors that I couldn’t or wouldn’t try to evaluate.

As I said, the rules a vague and the penalties for getting it wrong are extreme.

I hope you will think of the 4th Commandment as well.

I do but that makes it worse not better because it generates a contradiction and degrades the integrity of the document. Lumen Gentium (14) continue that tradition. At least one of the verses must be wrong. In a high integrity system - “Truth cannot contradict truth”. If it does then the system doesn’t have high integrity and all of its “truths” are therefore suspect.

Who would consider a document that claimed itself to be infallible and then contradicted itself to be in any way credible?

Normally, I would suggest that the person needs to develop some distance from childhood and not evaluate and judge the Catholic Church based on experiences as a child 40 years ago. As I said before, it’s likely that you experienced a narrow slice of Catholic life – not the whole picture and not an accurate picture.

Yes, that’s good advice and I am here for just that reason.

I’ve noticed that you’re seeking understandings that are not paradoxical or contradictory. Normally, this will work well, especially in things like Mathematics. The teachings of Jesus though point out that the world (and the human life in it) is built on paradoxes.

There are some well known paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics by outside that field science has a largely paradox-free tale to tell that is: very coherent, delivers astonishing explanatory power and makes testable predictions. We now have a very impressive “Theory of people”. Many past paradoxes have been resolved by deeper understanding and the correction of error and misconception. So yes, that the macroscopic level I do indeed expect the world to be logical and capable of accurate depiction by scientific theories.

I’d be interested in your reasons why kids should not abandon hope.

Because, as explained above, evolution has equipped them to be able to grasp the gift of life firmly, live it to the full, achieve things, love others and feel rewarded for being a valuable member of the only known intelligent species in the Universe. If you’ll pardon the expression - “There’s one hell of a ***WOW ***factor in that”.

There’s more. I have on occasion, invented things. That is an amazing process and it has given me an inkling of how the likes of Darwin and Einstein must have been rewarded for their insights. The sudden flash of understanding is a spiritual experience of the first order.

I posted a quote from a biologist that disagrees with your conclusion. As he said, Darwinian theory is unnecessary in the work of analyzing bacteria and viruses. He did an informal survey of other scientists and they agreed.

Many people who use computers don’t use the quantum theory of how electrons behave is slivers of doped silicon but that doesn’t mean we can dispense with that theory.

Ed still hasn’t responded to my question about the ability of the immune system to re-program itself. There’s evolutionary theory behind that. The prediction that Bird-Flu might cross the species barrier and how it might do that is evolution based. HIV, Flu and Hepatitis C are Quasi-Species with “special” evolutionary properties. Many other organisms are evolving immunity to our antibiotics. As I said those who would have evolutionary thinking suppressed are playing a dangerous game.

Someone has coined the term “Inter-generational equity” to highlight the need for stustainability as a major component of our planning. Over use of antibiotics and failure to develop new ones will leave future generations with a time bomb. Humanists don’t want to do that kind of thing.

Where did this “responsibility” come from? Who is it that holds you “responsible for the world”? Why should anyone care about what happens to the world? What are the consequences for not caring?

We became responsible when we made the evolutionary transition that led to language. We are the only known species capable of understanding how reality works. We are the species occupying the co-operation/communication niche. Because of that the buck stops with us. Exciting isn’t it.

The consequences of not caring would be immediate. Starvation, disease, war. The Human species would go extinct.

Emotel.

 

[edwest2]

Uh, we already have starvation, disease and war. How does your system or philosophy change that?

Starvation threatens millions across the planet, along with access to clean water and adequate sanitation facilities. The US and other countries are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is your point?

Peace,
Ed

 

[emotel]

Again, I don’t really see the point of what you’re saying. God is not limited by our imagination, even if God is the greatest thing we can envision.

My “occupational hazard” perhaps but mathematically you are saying G > G and it cannot be because G = G and G is finite because it is defined as being capable of being envisioned by a human.

No doubt that the Ancient Egyptians worshipped many gods and the Hindus still do. I’m talking about a degradation of worship. You’re only going back to around 1500 BC but I’m talking, overall going back much further, like to 4000 BC and 3500 BC for example.

This book:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=_KP3b8xK9jIC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Bremner-Rhind+Papyrus+creation+myths&source=web&ots=FPCDPlcNUo&sig=0otFbgYIPOsoXM55xebBe8rjvQw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA104,M1

Describes the Egyptian creation myths in detail starting on Page104 indicating

"The ennead of Gods and Godesses and its theology were probably underpinned by myths going back beyond 3000 BCE.

.

Page 104-105 details of how Atum “copulated with his hand” to create then Gods Shu and Tefnut who in turn created other Gods.

But it fits better with “attribute deterioration”, given the evidence for the most primitive “Sky Gods” having qualities like the God of Judaism, Islam, and, most especially, Christianity.

But the Egyptian Gods predate the Hebrew Gods and, or so it seems, Gods begat Gods with similar properties.

But the prominence of the Sun has nothing to do with these Sky Gods. They are all proclaimed as always existing before anything else, including the Sun, even existed. I’m not sure what you’re pointing out on this.

The ancient city of Heliopolis ( From the Greek for City of the Sun) was a principle seat of sun-worshipers and the original source of the Ennead Pantheon. Atum was the creator sun God who made the sky god via the above process.

The sun was an object of mystery and the giver of life in the real world. That’s why the ancients associated it with their important Gods.

Anyway, I think you are displaying a common error (in my opinion) of applying evolutionary processes to something that didn’t actually evolve (much like the errors of Evolutionary Psychology, Social Darwinism, etc.).

Dawkins coined the term “meme” to refer to the evolution of ideas, and myths as they moved from generation to generation.

It’s true that life evolved in my opinion. But trying to superimpose the theory of evolution over the emergence of Monotheism is applying the theory of evolution in the wrong direction. Religion did not evolve. True religion was revealed from God Himself.

I know that is you belief. For me these stories are all myths because the history books paint a different picture. Easter and Christmas coinside with key dates in the astronomical calendar that were worshiped by ancient pagans. Ēostre was the pagan God of fertillity who did her stuff in the spring. Christmas was close to the Winter solstice when the sun was “born again” and begain to rise up to bring heat an light. Easter is related to the Jewish Passover and moved to Christianity from there.

That Myth memes for you.

Anyway, you seem to be having a very good conversation with Reggie. If you want to discuss more about primitive monotheism just send me a private message. If I have more time I might even talk about it in another thread if you wish.

Thanks.

Yes ReggieM and I are have a great time. I don’t know how much mileage there is in this aspect or how much time you have.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Sadly, you are an ideologue. You played the muslim terrorist card. Do you think all Christians are out to harm people?

Gosh you guys sure are touchy about my reference to 9/11. Quite how you get from that to “all Christians are out to harm people” is beyond me? Those terroists were Muslims not Christians and they did believe that their place in heaven and the 72 virgins awaited them.

Your insistence on presenting life as purely an outgrowth of matter denies your own existence.

It’s the theory of evolution that does the “purely n outgrowth of matter” bit but it doesn’t, and nor do I “deny my existance”. It explains it.

You and your thoughts are byproducts of matter, stored in your genes, nothing more.

No the theory doesn’t say that? My genome is not a miniature model of me. You have got hold of a mistaken perception there.

There are some animals that live 100 years. How are you different from a lemur?

I an a member of the species that has made the evolutionary transition to language. The Baldwin effect kicked in and the symbolic species was born. That makes a rather startling difference between me and a Lemur.

As a biological robot, your thoughts and interactions are essentially predetermined, any feelings, positive or negative, are just neurons firing based on preprogrammed genetics.

No that’s the myth of Genetic determinism. Another misconception.

I would encourage you to avoid generalizations about groups of people that say ‘they are all like that.’ Even siblings in the same family group show differences in behavior.

Well I don’t need much encoragement because I never make such generalisations. ?

Starvation threatens millions across the planet, along with access to clean water and adequate sanitation facilities. The US and other countries are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is your point?

I’m talking about extinction of the human race via those processes. The world population is no so large that if technology stopped working and medicine stopped being administered then we would all die of one way or another rather quickly.

Emotel

 

[edwest2]

The majority of the people in the world lack adequate access to technology and medicine. In fact, business people from the richest nation on earth were surprised when they couldn’t sell laundry detergent in China. They investigated. The answer? People don’t have washing machines. In fact, that same richest nation in the world also found out something about the majority of people in China but they could not express their thoughts in common usage English: “The majority of the Chinese population are not economically active.” Translation: They are P-O-O-R.

You do not seem be offering anything other than a panacea that does not exist for the majority of people on earth: science will save us. Not when the richest people in the richest country on earth steal from the peasants. Enron, Global Crossing, the Savings & Loan Scandal, the Sub-Prime Mortgage Scandal. Meanwhile, people are dying from contaminated water, dysentery, and starvation. Do you know what the richest nation on earth does with surplus farm produce? Dumps it into the ocean. Farmers are paid to grow nothing. Why? Too much ‘product’ in the market drives down prices.

You seem to have a Utopian vision that does not square with the world as it actually is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[emotel]

No they didn’t. :nope:

The early Christians believed they were going to be with Jesus in heaven. The 9/11 terrorists probably believed they were going to some kind of paradise where they could marry many virgin wives to which they could have something like a divine orgy.

Yes that’s what I was referring to.

Also, the early Christians under Roman cruelty did not resort to violence. They certainly didn’t try to rampage through the Roman Empire because of the cruelty and accusations laid against them either. :nope:

I never said that they did?

There’s a big difference between one being willing to die for their faith and one being willing to fly a plane through a world trade center building. And if you honestly don’t see this difference, then shame on you. :tsktsk:

Well of course I see that but you seem to be missing my point. Which was… The early christians were motivated to see this life as unimportant and worthless. The 9/11 terrorists had the same view. That’s the “message” reggieM and I were talking about.

Why are you guys so touchy about the mere mention of 9/11 - have you all got guilty consciences about it ?

If you’re going to make analogies you can at least make an effort to move beyond these kinds of blatantly obscene theological comparisons.

“blatantly obscene theological comparisons” ? I stand by what I said but it doesn’t seem to be the same as what you seem to think I said. You guys have hair triggers on this.

The point that I was making was simply this. I can see from the origins of Christianity that there was motivation to consider this life to be unimportant and to look forward to the afterlife. All other religions have that in their history and some religiously motivated terrorists take it to extremes and do terrible things.

Everything I say there is both straightforward and true.

Humanists don’t do that. We vaule this life as being precious and we consider all religious stories about the afterlife to be myths.

The various definitions of “paradise” can be radically different from one “religion” to another—even within denominations of Christianity for that matter.

If there are n incompatible religions then at least (n-1) of them ***MUST ***be wrong because truth cannot contradict truth. Humanists take that small extra step and conclude that all n are wrong.

Emotel.

 

[edwest2]

So, you are a Humanist. Can you explain why so many people die of starvation? Or who go to bed hungry, even in the richest nation on earth?

wfp.org/country_brief/hunger_map/map/hungermap_popup/map_popup.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Camron]

My “occupational hazard” perhaps but mathematically you are saying G > G and it cannot be because G = G and G is finite because it is defined as being capable of being envisioned by a human.

No. That’s not it at all. I am not saying that God is greater than God. I am saying that we can envision something being greater than ourselves. In this sense the greatest thing we can conceive of is God. This is no different, on the most mundane level, of the fact that we can conceive of something being infinite even though we cannot grasp the full aspects of infinity into our minds.

For example, we can use the numbers 1, 2, and 3 from an infinite set of numbers. We can use these numbers without the infinite set losing its infinite quality too.

Envision the greatness of the tallest building in the world.

Now have you reduced the building or limited it in any way simply by envisioning it? No.

Point in fact, we can’t even imagine in our heads (at one time) all the work that went into the tallest building: the materials, the electrical connections, the lighting, the heating, the people who labored to build it, the people who work in it, the furniture that’s in it, etc.

We can certainly envision the basic concept of the greatest building in our heads without in any way reducing its greatness.

Again, I really don’t understand what you’re claiming here.

 

[Camron]

This book:
books.google.co.uk/books?id=_KP3b8xK9jIC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Bremner-Rhind+Papyrus+creation+myths&source=web&ots=FPCDPlcNUo&sig=0otFbgYIPOsoXM55xebBe8rjvQw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA104,M1

Describes the Egyptian creation myths in detail starting on Page104 indicating

"The ennead of Gods and Godesses and its theology were probably underpinned by myths going back beyond 3000 BCE.

So do they mention what these other myths were? Do they even mention any of the text that I’ve quoted to you?

If not, it may be because they are ignoring data which goes against the “evolution of religion” idea. Or they may be genuinely ignorant of the other data available, which I doubt since it’s available for all researchers to investigate.

Page 104-105 details of how Atum “copulated with his hand” to create then Gods Shu and Tefnut who in turn created other Gods.

Yes, so then what of the other references that were on the link I provided. The earliest records do speak of a primal God. You’re still not gong back far enough—and are still ignoring texts which dates from the same time that your other sources speaks of.
Here’s some text from the link.

Ebrard, gathering up the results of the researches of Lepsius, Ebers, Brugsch, and Emanuel de Rouge, deduces what seem to be clear evidences of an early Egyptian monotheism. He quotes Manetho, who declares that, “for the first nine thousand years the god Ptah ruled alone; there was no other.”

According to inscriptions quoted by De Rouge, the Egyptians in the primitive period worshipped “the one being who truly lives, who has made all things, and who alone has not been made.” This one God was known in different parts of Egypt under different names, which only in later times came to stand for distinct beings.

A text which belongs to a period fifteen hundred years before Moses says: “He has made all that is; thou alone art, the millions owe their being to thee; he is the Lord of all that which is, and of that which is not.”

A papyrus now in Paris, dating 2300 B.C., contains quotations from two much older records, one a writing of the time of King Suffern, about 3500 B.C., which says: “The operation of God is a thing which cannot be understood.”

The other, from a writing of Ptah Hotep, about 3000 B.C., reads: “This is the command of the God of creation, the peaceable may come and issue orders… The eating of bread is in conformity with the ordinance of God; can one forget that his blessing rests thereupon?.. If thou art a prudent man teach thy son the love of God.”

I’m sorry but these inscriptions do not mesh easily with the idea that all religions started from polytheisms and evolved into monotheisms.

Professor Ernest Naville, in speaking of this same subject in a course of popular lectures in Geneva, said: “Listen now to a voice which has come forth actually from the recesses of the sepulchre: it reaches us from ancient Egypt.

“In Egypt, as you know, the degradation of the religious idea was in popular practice complete. But under the confused accents of superstition the science of our age is succeeding in catching from afar the vibrations of a sublime utterance. In the coffins of a large number of mummies have been discovered rolls of papyrus containing a sacred text which is called ‘The Book of the Dead.’ Here is the translation of some fragments which appear to date from a very remote epoch. It is God who speaks thus: ‘I am the Most Holy, the Creator of all that replenishes the earth, and of the earth itself, the habitation of mortals. I am the Prince of the infinite ages. I am the Great and Mighty God, the Most High, shining in the midst of the careering stars and of the armies which praise me above thy head… It is I who chastise the evil-doers and the persecutors of Godly men. I discover and confound the liars. I am the all-seeing Avenger, … the Guardian of my laws in the land of the righteous.’ These words are found mingled in the text, from which I extract them, with allusions to inferior deities; and it must be acknowledged that the translation of the ancient documents of Egypt is uncertain enough; still this uncertainty does not appear to extend to the general sense and bearing of the recent discoveries of our savans.”

But the Egyptian Gods predate the Hebrew Gods and, or so it seems, Gods begat Gods with similar properties.

I still don’t think you understand this. I’m saying there’s evidence that some people who existed before the Hebrews still retained the knowledge of God from a primal revelation that predated the emergence of the Israelites. People knew God existed before Abram arose onto the seen.

The ancient city of Heliopolis ( From the Greek for City of the Sun) was a principle seat of sun-worshipers and the original source of the Ennead Pantheon. Atum was the creator sun God who made the sky god via the above process.

What about Ptah?

The sun was an object of mystery and the giver of life in the real world. That’s why the ancients associated it with their important Gods.

What about Ptah?

Dawkins coined the term “meme” to refer to the evolution of ideas, and myths as they moved from generation to generation.

Yes, and now some are claiming there are memes within our brain structures too, even though there is no evidence of this at all. Again, you are misapplying valid biological evolutionary evidences for the diversification of life and incorrectly superimposing them over the origin and development of religion.

I know that is you belief. For me these stories are all myths because the history books paint a different picture. Easter and Christmas coinside with key dates in the astronomical calendar that were worshiped by ancient pagans. Ēostre was the pagan God of fertillity who did her stuff in the spring. Christmas was close to the Winter solstice when the sun was “born again” and begain to rise up to bring heat an light. Easter is related to the Jewish Passover and moved to Christianity from there.

Actually, the Israelites inherited their calendar and Passover Festivals from the Canaanites.

There is little question that many symbols of Easter have been adopted from various cultures. But this is true for almost all Christian symbols, including the cross (the sign of the fish is the most unique and original Christian symbol). But this has always been the case since the days of Abraham and Moses. That is, God’s people have always used symbols with which they were familiar from the surrounding culture, and then infused them with new meaning to commemorate and worship God. In the process the symbols are radically transformed into a means to express faith in the only true God in spite of their “pagan” origins. Such sacred Old Testament institutions as animal sacrifice, circumcision, temple worship, the priesthood, and prophets, even names for God like El, were all adapted from preexisting counterparts in Canaanite religious practice. Even the rituals of Passover itself were adapted from two preexisting Canaanite festivals associated with fertility, one celebrating the Spring birthing of livestock (the day of Passover) and the other celebrating the early barley harvest (the week long Feast of Unleavened Bread that begins on Passover; see The Festival of Passover)

This simply suggests that the origin of the name Easter or other aspects of the Easter celebration are probably not as important as how those symbols have been transformed by a worshipping community or what is actually celebrated by the symbols and event. That does not mean that all elements should automatically be accepted uncritically or without question as to their Christian connection. And it certainly should encourage us to emphasize clearly, especially to children, what we are actually celebrating and the meaning of the symbols, and to do so deliberately and with purpose (Easter it is not a celebration of the coming of Spring!). But neither should it allow us to adopt a negative or hypercritical attitude toward the event so that people who should be hearing our witness to the grace and power of God at work in the world bringing hope and the promise of renewal amid endings, only hear grumbling and carping.

That Myth memes for you.

I’m more interested in the meme that all religions can be explained in evolutionary language.

Yes ReggieM and I are have a great time. I don’t know how much mileage there is in this aspect or how much time you have.

Emotel.

I actually don’t have that much time.

 

[emotel]

So, you are a Humanist. Can you explain why so many people die of starvation? Or who go to bed hungry, even in the richest nation on earth?

wfp.org/country_brief/hunger_map/map/hungermap_popup/map_popup.html

I can’t see where you are going with this Ed.?

I could understand your reaction if I had said that I was a “Capitalist” and favoured the rich getting richer. But I’m a Humanist and I say that humans have the responsibility for the world and its down to them to solve problems like world hunger.

I don’t particularly want to get into contraception but is is very clear to me that if the world’s populating keeps increasing exponentially and the food supply continues to dwindle then hunger and starvation will increase.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

No. That’s not it at all. I am not saying that God is greater than God. I am saying that we can envision something being greater than ourselves.

So G > H. Where G=God and H = Human,

No problem there.

In this sense the greatest thing we can conceive of is God.

so

G = C where C is the greatest thing that we can conceive of.

But G > C because G is greater than the human ability to conceive.

Hence you are saying

G > G

Again, I really don’t understand what you’re claiming here.

It’s not a big ( pardon the pun issue just logic.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Yes, so then what of the other references that were on the link I provided. The earliest records do speak of a primal God. You’re still not gong back far enough—and are still ignoring texts which dates from the same time that your other sources speaks of.

No I’m not ignoring those texts. I’m saying that there are other models of the emergence of religious myths in Egypt. That doesn’t surprise me because communication was via horse and cart.

The timeline is here:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=_KP3b8xK9jIC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Bremner-Rhind+Papyrus+creation+myths&source=web&ots=FPCDPlcNUo&sig=0otFbgYIPOsoXM55xebBe8rjvQw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR11,M1

This shows the emergence of the Gods from multiple pagan-style beliefs.

The creation myth is presented as an animation by the British Museum here:

ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/story/main.html

What about Ptah?

Ptah-Seker gradually became seen as the personification of the sun during the night, since the sun appears to be reincarnated at this time, and Ptah was the primordial mound, which lay beneath the earth. Consequently, Ptah-Seker became considered an underworld deity, and eventually, by the Middle Kingdom, become assimilated by Osiris, the lord of the underworld, occasionally being known as Ptah-Seker-Osiris.

So the religious myths changes considerably over time.

I’m more interested in the meme that all religions can be explained in evolutionary language.

I’m not a great fan of meme theory and I agree that we need another word to separate biological evolution from other form of evolution.

Emotel.