Philosophical (and theological) implications of evolution

[mitchellmckain]

At Dr Mundo's request, I have put this topic I am discussing with Rian in the Christian section out here in General discussion section for everyone's input.

The philosophical implications of evolution are many. Because evolution tells us so much about the nature of life, the philosophical implications are far reaching and profound. First and foremost, the implication is that despite subjective appearances, living things are not a product of design but of a learning process. This of course requires a use of the word "learning" that is not restricted to human ability but which applies to any process by which many things are tried and those that work are remembered and repeated. Human beings may be particularly adept at it but it is hardly something which only they can do.

On the theological front, I know that evolution has frequently been the reason why many people have stopped believing in God, but I think that is largely a consequence of theistic opposition to evolution which is a losing proposition. But evolution has not been an obstacle to people coming into belief in God. It has been my assertion that evolution is more compatable with Christianity than creationism. For example, I think the problem of suffering, which is largely unanswerable in the context of a God who designed everything, resolves quite easily in the context of evolution where we are not a product of divinely perfect design but of a learning process that requires a great deal of suffering and death. It also means that the role of God has always required unpleasant necessities which provides a context in which lot of stories in the Bible are much more understandable and defensible.

[gary_s]

How about giving us an example of one or two of those Bible stories.

[mitchellmckain]

How about giving us an example of one or two of those Bible stories.

I never heard of an atheist that couldn't tell people all about such stories -- where God was responsible for the deaths of large numbers of people, such as the flood or where God told the Israelites to leave none of the enemy that they were conquering alive.

[Dr Mundo]

At Dr Mundo's request, I have put this topic I am discussing with Rian in the Christian section out here in General discussion section for everyone's input.

The philosophical implications of evolution are many. Because evolution tells us so much about the nature of life, the philosophical implications are far reaching and profound. First and foremost, the implication is that despite subjective appearances, living things are not a product of design but of a learning process. This of course requires a use of the word "learning" that is not restricted to human ability but which applies to any process by which many things are tried and those that work are remembered and repeated. Human beings may be particularly adept at it but it is hardly something which only they can do.

On the theological front, I know that evolution has frequently been the reason why many people have stopped believing in God, but I think that is largely a consequence of theistic opposition to evolution which is a losing proposition. But evolution has not been an obstacle to people coming into belief in God. It has been my assertion that evolution is more compatable with Christianity than creationism. For example, I think the problem of suffering, which is largely unanswerable in the context of a God who designed everything, resolves quite easily in the context of evolution where we are not a product of divinely perfect design but of a learning process that requires a great deal of suffering and death. It also means that the role of God has always required unpleasant necessities which provides a context in which lot of stories in the Bible are much more understandable and defensible.

There are people who believe that if evolution is true that their life is then meaningless because it has no objective purpose. I am unable to even begin to understand that statement. I of course come from the believe that the meaning we have in life, is a by product of our desires and of what comprises our passion for the things we love. So in my view meaning in life is coming from us, and what we are passionate about. Does that mean that I have less meaning in my life than someone who believes they were created instead of "random chance" evolved? I don't think so. Anyone care to disagree or agree and if so what is your point either way.

[gary_s]

I never heard of an atheist that couldn't tell people all about such stories -- where God was responsible for the deaths of large numbers of people, such as the flood or where God told the Israelites to leave none of the enemy that they were conquering alive.

Well, I didn't say I had no examples, now did I? I would rather hear what you consider to be good examples. That way I don't get accused of cherry picking or putting words in your mouth. So, I'm not seeing the connection with the two you mentioned. The flood, though natural because it was a rainstorm, was supposedly a specific event caused by god to kill most everything on the planet as punishment because god didn't approve of how people were living. If taken literally, I don't see this as a good example at all. People learn much better when they are allowed to experience the consequences of their actions. In the flood story, god allowed just one family to continue living, and these were the only virtuous ones on earth, so the only thing they could have learned from that was that they should do what god says or he'll kill you. Not very subtle. And the story makes little sense from an evolutionary standpoint because there's absolutely no way this one family could have repopulated the earth.

I'm not seeing the point of the second story either. Defeating an enemy is reasonable, but genocide? What could there possibly be to learn from this? Perhaps that if god doesn't like you, tough bananas, he'll send someone to wipe out your race. War itself is a powerful learning opportunity because it breaks up families, leaves warriors maimed and scarred and leaves guilt on the ones who killed their enemy. It causes people to question their leadership and even their own motivations and to respect their foes. These are powerful lessons, but god is hardly needed to coax people to war, let alone command them to commit genocide.

As a concept, I can see how what you are saying makes sense, but I don't see how these particular examples fit that concept. Survival is difficult and there are ample opportunities for humans to learn things about existence through the experiences of hardship, death, and prosperity. Evolution certainly fits within that.

[mitchellmckain]

There are people who believe that if evolution is true that their life is then meaningless because it has no objective purpose. I am unable to even begin to understand that statement. I of course come from the believe that the meaning we have in life, is a by product of our desires and of what comprises our passion for the things we love. So in my view meaning in life is coming from us, and what we are passionate about. Does that mean that I have less meaning in my life than someone who believes they were created instead of "random chance" evolved? I don't think so. Anyone care to disagree or agree and if so what is your point either way.

Oh I very much agree. What may interest you is that I do so from an entirely theistic point of view. I believe that God's intention in creating us was to make children rather than tools and thus to be an end in ourselves rather than as means to an end. A part of being children is that do indeed find our own purpose in life in what we are passionate about. Furthermore I think this objective in inherent in the very process of evolution itself where living things are created not by some design to fulfill a purpose but rather by a process of self-organization. Life is this process that God made so that we would participate in our own creation by making our own choices.

[mitchellmckain]

As a concept, I can see how what you are saying makes sense, but I don't see how these particular examples fit that concept.

Oh to be sure this doesn't provide the reasons for those particular events. But you can see that it makes sense why I am saying that evolution is more comaptable with Christianity than creationism. As for these events, the following is how I understand them.

The flood, though natural because it was a rainstorm, was supposedly a specific event caused by god to kill most everything on the planet as punishment because god didn't approve of how people were living. If taken literally, I don't see this as a good example at all. People learn much better when they are allowed to experience the consequences of their actions. In the flood story, god allowed just one family to continue living, and these were the only virtuous ones on earth, so the only thing they could have learned from that was that they should do what god says or he'll kill you. Not very subtle. And the story makes little sense from an evolutionary standpoint because there's absolutely no way this one family could have repopulated the earth.

I don't think that the flood was punishment any more than the event which wiped out the dinosaurs. It was simply required in order to keep potential of humanity alive. All throughout the Bible God makes it abundantly clear what it is that He considers evil and intolerable and it always involves the suffering of the innocent. So when all humanity is described as only evil continuously, I am quite sure that there was plenty of human suffering going on, and I have little doubt that the only ones which survived to adulthood were not very innocent anymore. So yeah we were living in the world that we created for ourselves and I suppose you could say that we got what we deserved. But God wanted more for us and so He put a stop to it.

So yes God wiped out the "whole world" with a flood -- that is he destroyed all of human civilization which was probably in a fairly small area of the world. But just as I don't believe that Adam and Eve were the only members of the species on the planet, I don't believe that these sole survivors from that early human civilization were the only member of the species on the planet either. But as civilization spread from these survivors so did the story of the flood.

I'm not seeing the point of the second story either. Defeating an enemy is reasonable, but genocide? What could there possibly be to learn from this? Perhaps that if god doesn't like you, tough bananas, he'll send someone to wipe out your race. War itself is a powerful learning opportunity because it breaks up families, leaves warriors maimed and scarred and leaves guilt on the ones who killed their enemy. It causes people to question their leadership and even their own motivations and to respect their foes. These are powerful lessons, but god is hardly needed to coax people to war, let alone command them to commit genocide.

No He doesn't does He. So the fact of the matter is that genocide was typical human behavior all over the world. So as God sought to raise up the nation of Israel with a special relationship to Him, what do you think would have been their fate if He taught them a modern pacifist morality? Again I think God gave orders like this out of simple necessity. To preserve what God was trying to create within them from being destroyed by outside influences.

[gary_s]

OK, good point regarding a localized flood. I knew you know enough about biology to understand the genetic problems it would create if only one small family supposedly repopulated the earth. So, yes a flood destroying one particular and very corrupt civilization could easily happen. It kind of makes you think differently about things like the European invasions of the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries, too, and the depopulation of natives that ensued.

[Keep The Reason]

Is the point of this topic/discussion to illustrate that taken figuratively, the bible may symbolize things that have scientific grounding, like versions of evolution? If so, it's certainly not a unique concept.

But I find it a bit odd that mitchell argues for the symbolic nature of the Flood story here, but over in the "Is the Resurrection Necessary?" thread he takes the opposite opinion against StillSearching, arguing that the resurrection was a literal event. In fact, StillSearching would be far more convincing and consistent in depicting both the OT stories and the NT stories as symbolic parables about human evolution (not necessarily biological, but certainly culture). MM seems to want it one way for the OT, and a different way for the NT.

[mitchellmckain]

OK, good point regarding a localized flood. I knew you know enough about biology to understand the genetic problems it would create if only one small family supposedly repopulated the earth. So, yes a flood destroying one particular and very corrupt civilization could easily happen. It kind of makes you think differently about things like the European invasions of the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries, too, and the depopulation of natives that ensued.

I am not quite seeing the connection here. I think that is a case where two cultures had a great deal to learn and gain from each other but that Christians largely failing to live up to their ideals meant that the encounter was quite tragic for the natives. The role of the Quakers in this is one of the reasons that they are one of my favorite historical religions.

There is a fabulous science fiction book called "the Redemption of Christopher Columbus" by Orson Scott Card which represents how many people wish that this had turned out differently.

[Kestrel]

Hi there.

I was just passing through, when this thread caught my eye.
I find myself inspired to toss my take into the mix.

Certainly the topic of the thread is valid, yet the author gets tangled in fundamentally different issues.

...evolution tells us so much about the nature of life...

In keeping with my belief that the truth of a thing is in "it's" actions, I view "life" in the light of the question, what does life do?
Life empirically shows itself to make more life.
Granted only the most ambivalent among us are never interested in the myriad mechanics of this process, but at it's core the meaning of life is to make more life.
Then we should perhaps categorize the aforementioned life as instinctual. “Created” as it were by no more than happenstance and a coming together in an environment that favored it's formation. “Driven” only by it's ability to adapt. Conforming to and restrained by the governing laws of the environment in which it exists.
While there does seem to be evidence that some forms of life contain a mind, these minds do not seem to be self aware. Despite the entertainment provided by Disney and the ecologically minded extremists that attempt to anthropomorphize life, it is an observable phenomenon that the very life represented in a self aware context, shows no interest or even awareness of the appreciation of the idea.

Enter sentience.
Philosophy.
The question then becomes "What is the meaning of sentient life?" This is a different question. Obviously, the sentient observers in this case being humankind.

Each a person unto themselves, introduces the next element being necessary, to a degree imo, to interact with other individuals within the environment we find ourselves. A sense of self, the ego.
Philosophy then becomes the question, "What is the meaning of my life?"

I'm sure many of you are thinking, "Thank you Captain NOobvious."
I'm getting there.

And here's where things really begin to get tangled up. It comes as no news to any of us who reflect upon ourselves in an honest fashion, that our ego's have a tendency to concern themselves with the condition of others. Ever are our egos willing to point toward the fault(s) it finds in others, regardless of degrees of difference. To the point that where the question of "What is the meaning of my life?" far more often than not, bleeds over and transforms toward, "What is the meaning of everyone's life?"

In itself, a valid question, solely dependent upon the motivation of the one asking it.
The very nature of the ego requires it impose itself upon aspects of another.
I trust that most folks have at one time or another experienced this. As the imposer and receiver.

By far the lions share of the opening post in this topic is ego driven.
Since this is my first post in this forum, I would ask for the benefit of the doubt when I declare that my opinion is not meant to impugn mitchellmckain's motivation or sincerity.

There is an essential truth from which many other truths that apply to us all, originate. This truth holds for the atheist as well as for the believer.
That basic truth is that not one of us willed ourselves into existence. (To state otherwise makes it self refuting.)
At times.... an ego will trivialize if not flat out deny it.
This truth in no way confirms nor refutes the existence of a god or gods, if that is ones belief.
It is the great leveler. Intellectually it keeps us all on an even field when discussing these sometimes weighty matters.
It's also the first thing that the ego tosses out the window.

The truth that me, I, the individual, did not choose to exist is what I feel is the finest point of a whole litany of situations and circumstances that I did not choose. Nor has anyone else I have met or interacted with to date.
I did not choose the following;
My gender.
My sexual preference.
My intelligence.
My talent(s).
My ethnicity.
My base physicality including aesthetics.
My parents, or their parents, etc. All the way back to the pool of amino acids, or Adam & Eve. Take your pick. Doesn't matter.
What I am attracted to.
What I find unattractive.
My attraction to faith.
Who I am attracted to. (Friends, lovers)
Who is attracted to me. (Friends, lovers)
Where I was born.
When I was born.
That I will die.
My children.
That I will have children.
What social status I was born into.
My medical situation dependent upon my dna. Even circumstances that through accident or lack of judgment effect my health. One way or the other.
etc.

These are empirical truths that apply to all. Quite often the ego will deny these things at the cost of fair mindedness and even in breach of a sense of justice.

Person 1 - “Racism is wrong.”
Person 2 - “Why?”
Person 1 - “What do you mean, why? It just is. Do you like being discriminated against because of what you look like?”
Person 2 - “No. Well, aside from the fact it is a constant factor in play during a request for a date...but No. I don't like it. But why is it wrong?”
Person 1 - “'Cause it is, fool.”

Not very satisfying.

This however;
Since I did not choose my ethnicity, racism is unjust as it would entail me to take credit for that which I did not choose and hold accusation over someone else for what they did not choose. Clearly to the fair minded individual racism is unjust on an absolute intellectual level.

So when in discourse, I provide my opinion that affirmative action is a racist based policy, I am declared by many to be racist. (Ethnicist, would be a more accurate term but I imagine that the word would lose its “zing” when shouted by protesters.)
When I explain to those who believe me to be racist, why I cannot be racist, from time to time their brow will furrow and they will say something like, “Yeah. But you don't believe that.”
To which I'll reply, “You only say that, because the acceptance of that truth not only removes an unfounded accusation, it also effectively and with permanence puts an end to any attempt to manipulate my feelings through guilt.”
Often a truth is a two edged sword.

Dr. King was absolutely correct and just in his desire to see a time where people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
With the most minimal of effort, one can apply anything from the above list in addition to the color of ones skin.

Intelligence is the same. Yet different as it is an aspect that an individual wields. We find ourselves each with a level of intelligence, that while it can be honed can not be increased.
What we can increase, each of us, is wisdom. Regardless of the amount of personal intelligence or knowledge available to an individual.
While intelligence, knowledge, wisdom and experience are not the same thing, I think it is right to suppose that wisdom is the intelligent application of knowledge gained through experience.
Personally, I see the wisdom in striving to be wise. I am thankful that my state of mind recognizes the idea that if I ever believe that I have somehow achieved some perceived zenith of wisdom, that I will then be the most foolish of all.

I could go on and on. (The irony of that sentence in a post this large does not escape me. LoL Once again I thank the reader for their patience)

Experience has taught me that it is wise to lay at least a few foundational stones of my worldview, so that as I turn back to the topic at hand, what I am about to say does not collapse upon itself.
Also, it allows me to return and shore that foundation up, for those who desire to speak more on this and do not dismiss the statements I am about to make, out of hand.

Right. So here we go;
As mitchellmckain pointed out, sentient life learns. Experiences. So I think it reasonable to imagine that the goal of sentience is to learn and experience all there is. Essentially, to strive toward the goal being to have a mind of a god.

It seems right to me that the two 'lifes' need to be joined together in order to form a whole.
Since instinctual life cares and 'knows' nothing, then it must be sentience that adapts to the instinctual.
How?

The very fine mitchellmckain, discerns the ingredient, or key if one prefers. If not it's correct application;

Life is this process that God made so that we would participate in our own creation by making our own choices.

Good. All one needs to do now is remove mitchellmckain's ego, thusly;
Life is this process that God made so that we will participate in our own creation by accepting the choices we cannot make.
There. A bit rough. Incomplete. Yet the essence is there.
That one change is as far as East from West.

So.
The meaning of sentient life is to make more sentient life.

By God, we are created to become gods.

If you are of the currently rare sort, believer or not, that upon reading that sentence, for a moment you felt your chest tighten. Perhaps you caught your breath. Maybe tears welled before your ego recognized it's peril and attempted to shut you off and rationalize away what you felt.
To you I say, Indeed. The truth sings and the children respond.

For those of you that say, “eh. Whatever”. To you hi say, hi there!

And to those of you who scoffed and even felt revulsion. I say, have a care.
I know you.
Not the individual. I know the ego that drives you.
The ego is the only thing that is exactly the same in human kind from individual to individual.
So if you are a believer and at this moment you are mentally preparing a list of scripture to hurl at me, have a care. For if you choose to respond to me with ego alone, you will receive no quarter.

Consider the following;
For the believers who view evolution as being at odds with creationism, the very thing you believe in and preach is evolution.
“Theological implications of evolution” yup.

My ego?
Yeah, it's here.
It has seen better days, lol. Certainly it is tenacious and always does it whisper to me.
I know what it is, and I understand why it exists.
I cannot get rid of it, and I would steer clear from those who claim they have.
But mine is contained. And I know enough to not take it's current state for granted.

If it helps, think of it as....the chaff that encompasses a kernel of wheat.

I consider myself, unique.
Just
like
everyone
else.


Which reminds me to declare, that nothing I bring to the table is new or original.
I may author this post, I am not the author of the ideas it contains.

So.
I am a 47 year old father of two, of no particular distinction. I am convinced that we are created to become gods.
Not some of us.
All of us.

I am happy to be here, and I am very much looking forward to learning from each of you.

One more thing if I may...
Sort of a bone to chew on;

If your sense of self can stand it, say you're a god. And the time comes where it's time or you are so inclined to make a new batch. (Whatever a god uses to determine this is admittedly beyond me and irrelevant to this exercise.)
Now I suppose an argument could be made that a god could just go PooF!! Creating another god. But aside from less complex forms of life that replicate itself, I see no evidence of life or sentience working this way.
So what do I expect, even demand from a god?
Any deity worth anything, imo, must be all knowing and all powerful. After all anything less would be...less.
So a god would also have had to genuinely experienced all that an intellect can experience. Right down to what would be, I imagine in my limited way, the most difficult experience of all.
This experience would have to be genuine. Like Marvin sang, “Aint nothing like the real thing, baby.”
This experience would be, and here comes the tasty part, existing in an environment where there is no evidence of a creator. An environment and condition in which intellect and emotion are evident but not served or fulfilled.
And for desert;
Where on the time line of the life of a god, does logic dictate that this experience can be best achieved?

At the beginning.

Peace.

[mitchellmckain]

A pretty careless and bizarre diatribe that!

By God, we are created to become gods.

And this is "taking my ego out of it"... RIGHT...

I cannot even imagine what "ego" Kestrel was seeing in my simple argument that evolution is more compatable with Christianity than creationism, but cannot imagine that it can even begins to compare with the ego implicit in Kestrel's "conviction".

If you are of the currently rare sort, believer or not, that upon reading that sentence, for a moment you felt your chest tighten. Perhaps you caught your breath. Maybe tears welled before your ego recognized it's peril and attempted to shut you off and rationalize away what you felt.

No I do not share in Kestrel's rare insanity. What I am immediately reminded of are the lies of the serpent in the garden of Eden. The best lies take the truth and twist it in another direction and so they sound good enough for the immature to buy into it and be misled. The truth is rather that,

By God, we are created to be His children.

In a personal relationship with the creator of the universe we shall indeed learn all that there is to be learned. But we are finite creatures and He is an infinite God and so there no end to what this God can teach us -- no end to what this God has to offer -- that is precisely why a relationship with God is exactly what can provide what is needed to make an eternal existence worthwhile. The statement with all the ego in it is Kestrel's not mine, for I feel no need to become a god. I simply seek all the things of life - growth, excitement, creativity, love, wonder, challenges, passion, learning and service to others - and seek them without ending. That is why Jesus said that He came - that we might have life and have it more abundantly and I don't think it is ego that makes us accept such an offer.

[Kestrel]

A pretty careless and bizarre diatribe that!

Pleased to meet you.
Usually, it takes a person 2 or 3 posts before they start calling me the devil. Even in such a back handed way.
No such need for a pretense of christian forbearance from you, it seems.
Nope. Straight to the ad homs! attaboy.

It seems what's puzzling you is the nature of my game.

Before I respond, there's a few things I'm not clear about in your position. If you wouldn't mind clearing these few things up for me, I will be able to reply more accurately. Thanks.

...be misled.

Are you declaring me to be 'misled', or misleading? Or both.
Is it your belief there is a consequence for one who is misled or misleads? If so, what is the culminating consequences according to what you believe?

By far the lions share of the opening post in this topic is ego driven.
Since this is my first post in this forum, I would ask for the benefit of the doubt when I declare that my opinion is not meant to impugn mitchellmckain's motivation or sincerity.

It's clear you read the first sentence.
Did you not see the second?

...for I feel no need to become a god.

I'll take your word for it. Are you implying that you perceive my position as being driven by a feeling of need?
Or am I reading too much into the above quote?

In a personal relationship with the creator of the universe we shall indeed learn all that there is to be learned. But we are finite creatures and He is an infinite God and so there no end to what this God can teach us -- no end to what this God has to offer -- that is precisely why a relationship with God is exactly what can provide what is needed to make an eternal existence worthwhile.

Do you stand by that statement, as is?

[Keep The Reason]

Greetngs, Kestrel.

I recognize your handle and your avatar from another forum. I think skeptic.com?

Anyway, let me apologize for the fact that you ran into the resident grouch Mitchell. He greeted me with ad homs as well, and did so with a few others. Mm aside, it's not a bad little group here. And the podcasts are very interesting. So welcome, and my recollection of you in another forum indicates you'll bring some interesting perspectives to this enduring (and endearing) subject.

By the way, I have the distinct and enviable pleasure of being on mitch's ignore list because I happily point out his enduring (and endearing) hypocrisy. I get to read him (he is interesting despite his social ineptitudes) and reply to him, and enjoy an ad hominem free experience here because of it. So while at first I considered his putting me on ignore to be a tantrum, childish, and just plain dumb, now I consider it the gift that keeps on giving.

[mitchellmckain]

...be misled.

Is it your belief there is a consequence for one who is misled or misleads? If so, what is the culminating consequences according to what you believe?

If you believe things that are incorrect then your choices are misinformed. It should be clear that this is not desirable. However since I do not believe that any of us are fully informed and that an accurate understanding is far from sufficient to making the best choices, it is all too likely that these are lost in a sea of such consequences. We can only do the best that we can and that we should do.

By far the lions share of the opening post in this topic is ego driven.
...
It's clear you read the first sentence.
Did you not see the second?

There is nothing you can say that will ameliorate your presumption. I refute your implicit claim to psychic capacity to see my motivations by the simple fact that you are absurdly wrong. You are free to speak of your own motivations and your assumption that other people must have the same motivations that you have are not warranted. Your admission that your posts are motivated by ego is easy to believe for it well fits what you said, but spare me the attempts to justify yourself by innane declarations that everyone else is likewise motivated. You remind me of evil men who justify the slaughter of children by saying that everyone even children care nothing for anyone but themselves.

...for I feel no need to become a god.

I'll take your word for it. Are you implying that you perceive my position as being driven by a feeling of need?
Or am I reading too much into the above quote?

I say what I mean and I mean only what I say. Unlike you, I pretend to no psychic abilities to see the motivations or feelings of others. But if people choose to play games of rhetoric whereby they take it upon themselves to assign feelings and motivations to others then I will often return the favor just to show them how absurd their own arguments are and then to enjoy watching the hypocritical drama of their protests at being treated the same way that they treat others.

In a personal relationship with the creator of the universe we shall indeed learn all that there is to be learned. But we are finite creatures and He is an infinite God and so there is no end to what this God can teach us -- no end to what this God has to offer -- that is precisely why a relationship with God is exactly what can provide what is needed to make an eternal existence worthwhile.

Do you stand by that statement, as is?

No I would discard the first statement as imprecise and say instead that, "In a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, there is no limit to what can be learned." But with that change, then as far as it goes, yes I stand by it. But these are statements within a context of other beliefs which are not stated here, so you may want to understand the context before jumping to conclusions.