Charles Darwin
Forum
Sanvean
I have a love for the ancients myself, and find it ineresting how both so little and so much has changed in the last few thousand years, let alone what we know of the the last several billion. But we should always be mindful of how little detail has survived and that our knowledge has developed immeasurably in so many different ways.
Some of us are concerned about loss (innocence? the "ignorous is bliss" school? deep ecologists? fundamentalism of any shade?) while others are excited about what knowledge brings.
I would never like to limit my world view to be limited or blinkered by the views of any single person (not even Charles Darwin). I 've never read anyone of value to me that even suggested that I should do.
For me the 'Origin of the Species' opened up another world view. I must admit it was quite a long time ago and that I've tended to move onto more contemporary developments in the same stream. There is still something of value in the source though.
I guess the difference between my belief system and other more faith-based views of the world is that my view is always contingent on what is known or believed at the time (not forgetting the past, of course). I can see that some people are fearful of the implications that complexity brings and yearn for certainty but i don 't think that certainty ever existed in the first place.
>>By Sarcophilus (Friday, 9 Jun 2006 11:50)
Certainty is a quite subjective matter, and i agree with you that real certainty haven't ever existed. I believe it will stay out of reach for us as long we'll be seeking for truth.
We indeed should be mindful of how little detail has survived. We even should be mindful that it is the little detail, the little change, that caused the big changes and developments on the paths of evolution. And it is to see all around us : the way life/nature reacts, moves and behaves. Or in music, marketingstrategy and in science...the way change behaves and why it adapts or rejects to achieve on what it's given on (still mysterious) 'instinct' to develop, while it doesn't recognize development at all. I find it all very fascinating.
>>By Sanvean (Sunday, 11 Jun 2006 16:11)
Certainty may out of our grasp forever, yes, so in light of that we must decide which method of inquiry is best suited to give us reliable knowledge of the world in which we find ourselves. i have been reading Harris' book, "The end of Faith," in which he describes the various forms of information gathering and analysis that humans have developed in our history, and he wisely concludes that scientific inquiry is to date the best approach to this problem. It is not that theologians or religious people care not for the truth, but quite the opposite, for it is the truth that they most aspire to know, but it is merely the way in which it is reached (or more often missed) that makes all the difference. Science is the only method which. in its very structure, contains a self-correcting device, ever reminding its adherents that knowledge is progressive, not static, and that onlookers are asked to require verification and ample evidence to all propositions. I cannot think of any religion, current or forever discarded into the realm of mythology, that allows and thrives on criticism of this kind, as it would undoubtably unravel the fabric of claims on which it stands. This doesn't imply that religions do not change over time, as we know they do, mostly in light of modern discoveries and common acceptance of undeniable truths. Instead of admitting to having once been in the wrong, they attempt to slither through the change and reword the old ideas to fit the new data via the highly reinforced concept of "interpretation." My question is this...If god delivered those words and ideas to us humans, and is so wise and intelligent, then why couldn't he/she have spoken in a manner that transcends era and context, allowing the claims to withstand the test of time and discovery? isn't the alternative view, that humans in their own time and place, created such notions, without the faintest idea of future developments and insights? Isn't that so dead obvious that it shouldn't even merit real discussion from here on out? The rhetoric of this question scares me, as the obviousness is all but that to most who live on this planet today. i suppose that logic and reason, although apparent in most human minds of every day living, seizes to be valued when it comes to the more fundamental questions of our existence and place in this universe. but I ask this...Would it be reasonable to demand evidence for my claim that there is a certain plant that, when eaten, makes a man grow five feet, and allows him to peer though the clothing of anyone within twenty yards? Of course it would demand evidence, for we all know that such is claim is far outside the world of observation and common sense. But if this claim were submitted into ancient texts, and delivered from generation to generation into the minds of the young, reinforced throughout society and culture, then our demand for evidence might become a form of heresy. Case and point...The resurrection of jesus, the parting of the red sea, the deliverence of the commandments, etc...Do these claims deserve, for some special reason, our faith alone, and the complete rejection of verification or proof? what is that reason?
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 20 Jul 2007 02:50)
We've always been searching for reason, ever since we've been able to think further than the native ways fromout our instincts. For example: at first everything was like it was. When the sun shone, she shone without a single motivation for askings as 'why'. The same counts for heavy forces and destructions elements could give with rain, storm and for example earthquakes. But at a certain point we became smarter by some (more or less coincidental) inventions and we made ourselves weapons and tools. I believe that from this point our brain for the first time began to get stimulated to think in reason. Stimulated but still incapable by absence of experience to find it. Now when the sun shone maybe we were able to think in first (yet small) awareness that it was good, and when a heavy storm took someone's life we longed for reason and gave the interpretation in a way we experienced this aggression that felt like anger or wrath, and in longing for cause we attributed this wrath to a force that was able to feel this given, that in latter stadia we named as God. And there are many forces in nature. Maybe it's an explanation for the amount of Gods we had in the beginning.
Anyway, at some point Mozes came with his Exodus, 'met' God at the mountain and declared a one and only God for all the people. Don't know what is true ot not, i believe the story i a result from a tradition that developed the myth(s) parellel to religion (Christianity in this one), melted in longing for belief fromout the longing for (the once so elusive) reason and made concrete after the death of Jezus, when tradition lived on, and after two ages completed and compiled in several books called the Bible.
Is this provable? If i do have evidence to verify my statement? Nope. I try to understand life, nature and people and the behaviours. For example why we are able to fall in love, what is the reason, what happens in the brain why we can experience this incredible euforic feeling? I don't have the anwer on that one (yet), but is it really necessary to know all the why's and how's of this emotional state to feel or even get aware of it? Then i come to the point in which i think that just like religion science is just not everything. To me these are additions to our lives to make it more rich, not to depend on. Then i come to the point of religion again. If you give yourself to a religion, you're asked to give yourself intirely, the whole of yourself, your identity. I think it's one of the reasons why it's hard to to admit, even when it would be proved some (Bible-)facts would be not that true as we thought. 'Cause you not only say facts in Bible are not real, you also thread the identity of a Christian. He might experience this thread as if his identity, his personality, even his existence would be a lie, his life would be a lie. No one wants to get in a horror like that, neither does he. With all the power he got he would defend his religion and belief. Just like everyone else would do, he will react fromout the most native will, defending himself, his instinct to survive.
>>By Sanvean (Sunday, 12 Aug 2007 13:24)
One can and most often does experience "love" without having a scientific explanation for such a phenomena. I myself am an example, at least in the sense that to date I lack a solid understanding of the human brain. However, there is indeed an explanation that awaits, if only we were to seek it out. I do not wish to live in a world that depends entirely on science, as i would inevitably find myself waiting for answers that we are not yet prepared to encounter. Most of life is lived in the "fly by the seat of the pants" mode, rarely patient enough to allow critical inquiry to take place. But in the pursuit of fundamental knowledge, some methods are simply better than others at uncovering the truth. Your account of how our ancestors attached reason to natural events seems likely and in fact reasonable, given the context of their conditions. The early methods, as seen from today's eye, appear primitive, simple, and inaccurate. That doesn't imply that our ancestors were stupid. Without their answer-seeking tendencies, we may never have reached the critical methods of science or even philosophy that we have today. My point is merely that we do live in the today, and most of us have been given at least a touch of science in our education and upbringing. this includes the devout religious people. whereas at one time religion and personal identity were essentially one, and religion held the reins on reason, today the pilot of reason is a more refined and respectable character. Why must the religious feel completely threatened when one of their dogmas comes under scrutiny in a world that can get to the actual cause of natural events? Is their mindset that it is better to be blissful and wrong than it is to admit falsity and change? Cannot this admission and subsequent change also be followed by happiness. or must it be devastating to one's identity all the time no matter what? Is it virtuous to stick to your guns in the face of the truth? I for one would never wish to be a part of that, and am glad that there are humans on this planet who are comfortable enough to know when they are wrong and work for progress and who are repelled by ignorant stagnation. though I will probably never contribute to our growing body of scientific knowledge, I have promised to myself that I will always try to update my mind with such new discoveries, and to forever change my worldview so that it reflects our gains in science and not superstition. The lieklyhood is that in my life i will have failures and shortcomings in such a lofty goal, abd will, like most humans, come to believe in some notions that will eventually be shown to be wrong or incomplete. this seems inevitable. But the mindset I have now ensures that if ever I discover these shortcomings, instead of holding on to them as some precious stone or out of respect for tradition, I will banish them and replace them with the truth as it comes.
>>By Hume Ungus (Saturday, 15 Sep 2007 01:36)
Having an open mind, to yourself and to other people('s critics) and criteria. Being able to change and adapt ideas to learn and develop in science, philiosofy and ofcourse in life. Otherwise we would still live in a time simular to the middle-ages. So, yes, i do agree with the fact not to always stick tightly to own dogmas, thoughts, opinions and so on. The danger of it all can be the ignorance of what is actually going on, or worse: total ognorance of the 'Self', own identity. But you know, when someone's identical weakened by depression, insecurity and grieve it is mighty easy to convince him with something that makes him feel better. Ofcourse this is a wellknown fact aswell a lucrative source for drugabuse. But it is 'lucrative' for church too. 'Cause being in such a kind of misere every helping hand is welcome. And then someone tells him that he can be saved in promise of even a fullfilled life. The only thing needed is for him to give is life to (in this one) Jesus, intirely. And when he does, he will become a part of the religion. And as said Jesus is truth, THE truth. The man's identity becomes a part of that truth, and will be highly motivated to secure his life in Jesus because of the experience of mighty strong love that can be achieved by the strong belief in this so called truth. And that makes him a part of it. He not only believes, but he even has become a part of it. So if you get to him and start a discussion/debate about, for example, the walk of Jesus on the water, that you doubt the existance of a living God cause of the impossibility of it , then in his (subconscious) way of 'being' you not only doubt his opinion, but the way he (unluckely really) infact interpretates he feels it in a way as if you just said to him straight in the face you doubt his life, his identity. And that makes him feeling (and still subconcious) threatened. It is as if you say that the belief he gave his life to is a lie. Well, then it can be hard to be still open and convince him of a truth different than the Bible. Yep, different priotities: you focus in life to grow in it, while 'his' only goal is to keep save his world, his life, his security and only to grow in his life with Jesus......he doesn't belief in the evolutional aspects of life....no dinosaurs have ever existed. But how's he to blame? For somehow reason he's life got f***** up and there was no-one to give him the helping hand or able to open his eyes to reality. Not science not politics not the people nor the country he once believed in could help him, no-one but Jesus........It is just one of the reasons, i think, why religion was able to survive two whole millennia. But on the other hand: how can it be that after a twothousand years of proclaiming Truth religion still not has conquered the world in the free will of mankind? We've had the middle-ages, a time nobody tried or dared to despite the Bible/Jesus. But it was not fromout belief but by the power of the church.
The reason i took 'first man' as an example was just to give the reason i believe how religion started, with the desire of knowing by disability to explain by being subconscious aware of responsibility giving a reason for rain, and not finding it (but still in unrecognised desire) to ascribe it to a higher power. Like all the tangibility on Earth i believe also the human mind is subject to evolution. So this basical believing was on the way to religion. And from religion to (names as) Darwin, Descartes, Freud and Einstein, from the nineteenth century to now. And i think our mind is still evoluating, and that this confusional time of so many spiritual, social and psychological directions are part of the fase for the new step in development of the human mind.
+
>>By Sanvean (Friday, 9 Nov 2007 15:21)
Concerning the origin of religions...A heavily supported theory today holds that religion is actually a by-product of human evolution, and not in and of itself an inevitable locus for higher order thinking. Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists suggest that religious ideas, and the subsequent persistence and spreading of said ideas, stems from primitive man's psychological need to believe wholeheartedly in exactly what our parents and tribal authorities tell us, in order to survive. When they teach us that fire is hot, we had better believe it. When they tell us that running over the cliff's edge will lead to death, then no fisrt-hand experiment will leave us alive to disagree. Consequently, when children are instructed in more abstract modes, like those of religious dogma, the same adherence is applied. It is only natural for the young, developing mind to believe, and then eventually perpetuate, the accumulation of information it has gathered from its very beginning. That evidence to the contrary seems to some overwhelming and all-important, it may face the problem of not being able to undo the deepest, most firmly rooted indoctrination of childhood. Considering that in prehistoric times, what we understand as solid evidence today, did not exist at all, it is no wonder that seemingly irrational ideas flourished without resistance. It is really a very recent development in human history that religious indoctrination is not necessarily the chosen basis for a child's understanding of the world. I, for example, was raised in a household that could best be described as "secular" and very much agnostic. My education consisted of literature, science, history, mathematics, and the like. I have never been instructed on the Bible, the Old Testament, or the Qu'ran. My identity in this world is purely humanistic, when it comes to morality. I'd like to think that to date this has been the best ethics humans have devised. Of course it isn't perfect, but it seems to be more condusive to rationality and compassion than traditional experiments.
I do fear the state of America today in reference to this topic. It appears that evangelical christianity is on the rise again, perhaps in a backlash to the semi-progressive decades beginning in the 60's. In a country that on the one hand values and thrives on scientific understanding and discovery, it is ironic that the debate surrounding evolution is as tense and crucial as it now is. Cleary most theologians with an ounce of integrity won't get behind the theory of creationism that holds the Earth to be 6,000 years old. They will also acknowledge the roundness of the planet. But these are issues that can make a person look absolutely rediculous. Why isn't the refutation of natural selection in the same category? It is just as well founded a theory, and yet a growing number of people have managed to position their minds against the evidence. I wonder exactly what is at stake...What do they feel they have to lose by accepting this part of science in the same way that they support the science that ensures them that the plane they are flying on will function properly? Surely if they doubted the science underlying flight, they would fear to get aboard. The picking and choosing of what science they want to acknowledge is not only intellectually flawed, but it is becoming destructive to our culture. The tricky and dishonest campaign dubbed "intelligent design" is the old creationism plot disguised to appear more scientific and independent-attempting to gain credibility by saying that they have no religious interests. But when you look at the proponents, a majority are in fact practicing christians with alterior motives. In a nutshell, these so-called scientist are severely lacking in imagination and as a result always default any phenomena of complexity to be explained by god. Is that science? Where in the accepted methodology does it say-when you cannot find a natural explanation, simply give up and say that some god creature made it so? Science is supposed to reach fundamental, and simple explanations, and avoid explanations that take you several steps backwards. For example: If the universe is soooo complex that only a god could have created it, then mustn't the god be just as complex, if not more? Could a simple, unorganized, and mentally stupid god do all that work? If you don't think so, then the question arises-how did god get that complex? Isn't he also in need of explanation, just like the masterpiece he was said ot have created? Does the god theory answer a question, or merely postpone it? Have we advanced our understanding whatsoever? NOT AT ALL!
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 6 Jun 2008 01:25)
Anyone seen "Religulous" yet? Bill Maher's new film is both hilarious and scary. It pretty much focuses on a few very basic questions, posed to religious people around the world. The rediculousness of their views comes to light clearly. Check it out
>>By Hume Ungus (Saturday, 28 Feb 2009 20:27)
Yes, you are so correct about the origins of religion; It defenitely starts in the undeveloped mind of the child. And in the 'early days' i agree there weren't that much abilities to refute any contrary. From generation to generation and from age to age the mind developed a way of thinking in knowlegedge and stimulating curiosity, along with desire for answers and confirmation. And i think that is where main inspirations found ground to build a 'house' of religion. And still lots of people everywhere have the freedom and/or táke the freedom (with or without knowing it/with or without consciousness) to interpretate reality and facts in a way they prefer to see it. The room for interpretation was just way much bigger: longing for reason was stronger than our ability to find it. And we excell (still) as creators of reason that ables to found a personal (group) reality: abstract reality. Might it not be so that this way somehow, and in absence of resistance of any kind like you said, belief started its own development? And that it became religion by confirming traditions and all those personal interpretations of reality?
And yes, i agree that religion IS a byproduct of human (mind-)evolution. But the impact of belief and religion is just that huge that it formed human history on large scale and influenced us so much that i think it became a part of mental evolutionary process. 'cause still we're able to beat someone to death by disagreement. Still we search for revenge when iniquity is done. Still lots of people are in search for identity trying to find it in external matters like materialism, and still lots feel humiliated and therefor threatened in just a disagreement. It might be one of the consequences of an external identity: like lots of religion people (i think) experience it that way. At least i did when i was a devoted Christian.
Might it not be possible that the rise of Christianity is a result of lack of identity? If science cannot give it and existence to reality is not much more than paying taxes, a boring job and a wallful of rules and laws to keep you save and preserving community? Our instincts for (mental/welfare) survival is stronger than the care for facts: thought the rise of Christianity worries me too, i definitely can understand its source and reasons. Lots prefer to see reality in a way that's comfortable to see. |And doubt ain't welcome in their world, and no fact will ever be able to doubt their God. They will even fight for it, 'cause it's quite huge their identity depends on. And i believe (how ironic) that this process is another part of our mental development to a more conscious way of thinking.
It's pretty much off-topic this subject on religion (or is it 'about' religion? My English aint that perfect). But on the other hand: I do not believe there was some divine entity/identity that created the planet in seven days. To me there are way too many contraries evident enough to explain 'Creation'. Yet it thrills me that we still have not found the answers on how it all started. A variety of speculations can be found in literature and other media everywhere, but thé Answer is not within our reach yet.
It all started with a 'single' molecule and an atom (by matter of speech). And i have my own thoughts and ideas about it, but still: where did the micro-elements start and/or come from that was able to florish to develop to 'higher' elements under the perfect conditions and brought Earth life? I do not have any answers, but it might be a sport to challenge my thoughts.
>>By Sanvean (Sunday, 17 May 2009 13:48)
It has been some time since i checked our postings...Glad to see that you (Sanvean) have added yet another great piece to the discussion. I always enjoy your posts. also, your english is better than you give yourself credit for.
although this chat is supposed to be about darwin, it has taken on a life of its own, so to speak. Ultimately, the question becomes one of origins. When it comes to cosmology, you are right, we humans have yet to figure out just what the very beginning was all about. However, even in that statement, I am assuming that my notion of a beginning is somehow correct. After doing quite a bit of reading and thinking on the subject, I am less confident that we view time, matter, energy, space, and causality fully. Where I feel more certain is in our method for improving our thinking. Call it meta-philosophy or meta-science if you will. One of the redeeming qualities to these styles of thought is that they attempt to self-correct. We wish to avoid the pitfalls of assumption as much as possible. For example....We have a fairly good understanding of what our universe looked like, and how it behaved, to within a very tiny fraction of a second after the initial "bang." We know the approximate temperature, rate of expansion (mind-boggling), have identified the relevant fields and particle formation rates etc...Each year we push the clock back a little further, filling in the details as we go. However, that is where our scientists must stop if they are honest, or admit to pure speculation, lest they become weak minded and commit the intellectual crime of giving up and postulating an idea for which there is no foundation. Roger Penrose, one of our greatest living mathematicians, has done just that. He has commited his mind to the belief that in the beginning there was a god-leaving behind his otherwise rational and sharp intellect to suit some deep-seeded psychological need. although it differs in flavor from any standard religous argument, it ultimately stretches in just the same way.
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 17 Jul 2009 17:03)
Thought I'd check this forum as I'm reading a book by a Christian who reckons atheism is irrational.
The reason some scientists think there must have been a God is because the universe has to have had a beginning and it can't have created itself, so something else must have created it. Even if you accept that and reject the idea that it just popped into existence, I personally don't see how that points to the existence of a god, and certainly not the god in any major religion.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 18 Aug 2009 12:27)
I've never been comfortable with any statement or a priori argument, such as the ontological argument, that posits some grand truth about the universe without any data or information input whatsoever. When it comes to origins, part of the difficulty we humans face is what SEEMS to be logical necessities. Anything that appears finite must have a beginning, and anything that appears designed must have a designer. But alas, the very notion of creation on a cosmic scale reeks of incredulity-not unlike creation myths of old in which the designer resembled the human form and condition. The fact that we do in fact create artefacts that would not otherwise be nearly probable enough to just arrive on their own, we tend to extend this kind of thinking to the universe itself. What are the odds of the fundamental forces being valued in such a way that star formation becomes possible, which eventually leads to the formation of heavier elements that in turn make up life? Doesn't it seem too improbable for it to just be a matter of chance? One possible (though upon inspection much less probable) solution is to posit an intelligent agent at the beginning-an agent with the capacity to understand how this constant and that constant will interact and form complex bodies. This feels, on some level, like a likely answer to a difficult question. However, it turns out to merely postpone the very question. If it is the origin of complexity we wish to explain, then what goog does it do us to add to the formula an agent that surely must be complex in its own right. Anything that is intelligent exhibits a degree of complexity which demands an explanation-so an infinite regress is the best we can hope for if we want to say that a god created our universe. One god, creating another god ad nausium...
On the other hand, we happen to have an earthly model for the development of highly complex forms coming about by purely natural, non-miraculous means, from much simpler beginnings. The origin of life on earth, although disputed in some detail, is acknowledged by clear-headed scientists and mathematicians to be explainable without the use of any intelligent agent to get things going. The analogy I am presenting certainly doesn't translate completely to the cosmological problems, but it does offer one type of explanation that is naturalistic, and is capable of reducing highly improbable forms into small, more probable steps, which cumulate over the eons. Who knows if there are multiple universes, and if so, whether they evolve in any meaningful way. But here is an hypothesis that can begin to answer questions instead of postponing the problem at hand. It has the advantage of not being the product of a quitting mind.
>>By Hume Ungus (Thursday, 27 Aug 2009 01:14)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS