[iltos]

i realize there's a range of specifics, but -in general- most religions have among their tenets some form of tranformation that can bring the individual closer to something eternal (either in life or after it)....and a set of criteria which outlines (or at least suggests) some form of selection process that is important in order to acheive that transformation.

it has always struck me that this is very reminiscent of darwin....mutation and natural selection (survival of the fittest)...or perhaps, more accurately, that there is something in darwin's observations that points out a connection between the physical evidence supporting evolution and our apparently innate and fairly universal desire for spiritual change, and growth.

at some point in the development of human societies, some, like america, have done their best to put religion off to the side....to allow its importance to flourish for the individual, but to minimize its effects on overall social policy.

and, of course, the last seven years have seen that pov challenged, as america struggles again with the place of religion in politics.

which brings us to this, today, from the nytimes....

May 5, 2007
A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin
By PATRICIA COHEN

Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the right about whether God or science better explains the origins of life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?

one faction of the split states

that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.

so....

Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?

ya think this is true?

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by iltos

i realize there's a range of specifics, but -in general- most religions have among their tenets some form of tranformation that can bring the individual closer to something eternal (either in life or after it)....and a set of criteria which outlines (or at least suggests) some form of selection process that is important in order to acheive that transformation.

it has always struck me that this is very reminiscent of darwin....mutation and natural selection (survival of the fittest)...or perhaps, more accurately, that there is something in darwin's observations that points out a connection between the physical evidence supporting evolution and our apparently innate and fairly universal desire for spiritual change, and growth.

Surely there is a teleological imperative in the religious idea of transformation? ie there is a given end state of transcendence (or whatever) and transformation and spiritual enlightenment among believers works towards that pre-destined end.

I think you would be very hard pushed to convince any serious evolutionary biologists that there is a teleological element to Darwinism and natural selection.

[oldie]

Science V Faith

[iltos]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

Surely there is a teleological imperative in the religious idea of transformation? ie there is a given end state of transcendence (or whatever) and transformation and spiritual enlightenment among believers works towards that pre-destined end.

I think you would be very hard pushed to convince any serious evolutionary biologists that there is a teleological element to Darwinism and natural selection.

well sure....both arguements are just the result of a brain that seeks meaning in its environment...both see the puzzle and want to assemble the pieces....the diffenence (crudely) is that the religous puzzle comes in a box with a picture on the front, and the scientific puzzle pieces came in a plastic bag with no directions.

but the question is more about the darwinian pov and whether its imperatives have value to the convservative philosophy ....and if they DO, then why is the telelogical imperative in relgion so supportive of it in this country.....

and it seems to me the answer lies in mutation (transformation) and survival of the fittest (the selection process....generally, the rule of morality)....these things are to me also descriptors of cultural "evolution", which opens up the larger can of worms....."progessive" thought.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by oldie

Science V Faith

well, yeah....but i done my best there, oldie, to give ya some food for thought in this here debate thread....

i'm thinking, this morning anyway, that it might be worth a closer look

[oldie]

Originally Posted by iltos

well, yeah....but i done my best there, oldie, to give ya some food for thought in this here debate thread....

i'm thinking, this morning anyway, that it might be worth a closer look

And welcome it is but like most physicians, I tend to separate science from faith. Of all the species, extinct or otherwise, only one has the capability to reason. To be blunt and put it in a nutshell, we humans are the only species that know about death. We know we have to die .. thus the escape route of faith through religion. Not a bad thing, indeed good, I (we) are regular churchgoers

Science already knows that following death, for a brief period thereafter, parts of the human anatomy still continue to grow. This is why science also admits that the mind, as spirit, may well be active for a limited period of time following brain death.

If there is some great divine being out there that promises a life thereafter, then surely that applies to all living matter that has ever existed or will exist. Bacteria, viruses and mould spores. All are living (or dead) species of life on earth, unless that great divine is selective

Oldie

[pyritechips]

at some point in the development of human societies, some, like america, have done their best to put religion off to the side....to allow its importance to flourish for the individual, but to minimize its effects on overall social policy.

That's a matter of perspective. To Canadians there is much more involvement of religion in politics south of the border that north of it.

But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?

A quote from the link below: "...I felt that evangelical Christianity had been hijacked.

When did it become anti-feminist? When did evangelical Christianity become anti-gay? When did it become supportive of capital punishment? Pro-war? When did it become so negative towards other religious groups?"
My fear is the apparent failure to separate church and state. I believe that secular societies and political entities are the exception, not the norm.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15052_1.html

[BanditFlyer]

Vote for me - God is on my side and So is science.



Edit: I think anthropomorphising these ideas and then claiming backing of them is always a bit of a stretch from a logical perspective, and yet, always politically advantageous. As much so as kissing babies.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

That's a matter of perspective. To Canadians there is much more involvement of religion in politics south of the border that north of it.

i agree....and i think, particularly now, that many americans would, as well....i see the tenets of relgious thought (the classic issue of "faith vs. science" aside), and their relationship to both darwinian thought and conservative political philosophy as fundamental paradoxes that i've never understood.

separate state and church and they seem to coexist ok.....but trying to mix them points out conflicts of faith that would stagger me, if i were a believer.

A quote from the link below: "...I felt that evangelical Christianity had been hijacked.
When did it become anti-feminist? When did evangelical Christianity become anti-gay? When did it become supportive of capital punishment? Pro-war? When did it become so negative towards other religious groups?"

hehehe....yeah....staggering

My fear is the apparent failure to separate church and state. I believe that secular societies and political entities are the exception, not the norm.

one of things that surprizes me since 911 is that so many americans fail to see their own politico-relgious infatuation with fear. it strikes me a very darwinian....survival of the fittest

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

anthropomorphising

anthropomorphizing... had to look that sucker up... "to attribute human form or personality to"

.

[pyritechips]

...one of things that surprizes me since 911 is that so many americans fail to see their own politico-relgious infatuation with fear. it strikes me a very darwinian...

The infatuation with fear is actually generated by political power brokers to control the feelings of the public, ie. fear mongering. The infatuation would not exist if the politicians and media didn't keep forcing it relentlessly upon the public. There was the second world war and Hitler to stoke your fear then there was the Cold War and when that one ended there is now the "War on Terrorism". My question is: when (as percieved by the government and media) the war on terrorism is won (or lost and conveniently forgotten) what will be tne next enemy? I think this thread is a good one but focuses on the present while I am thinking about the future. But having said that the future is dictated by what we do now?
What are we doing?

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by iltos

and it seems to me the answer lies in mutation (transformation) and survival of the fittest (the selection process....generally, the rule of morality)....these things are to me also descriptors of cultural "evolution", which opens up the larger can of worms....."progessive" thought.

I'm really struggling with what you mean here. Surely if you accept the premise that there is no end game built into the theory of evolution, then one cannot imply any notion of "progressive", or for that matter "conservative" ideology from what is happening. You can only argue this pov if you accept that we have reached the "ideal type" now - with the current position of humanoity within the world - and evolution has stopped.

The notion of "cultural evolution" is even more difficult to sustain. Surely religious conservatives would argue that all the essentials of moral philosophy are contained within the Bible (or respective holy book), and that subsequent culture has only deviated from, gone against, or sought to adhere to those principles. No notion of evolution there. And from an evolutionary view, the idea of "cultural evolution", implying continuing improvement in a qualitative sense, is absurd. One can only accept the notion of improvement from a non-religious pov if one accepts the philosophy of humanism - as much anathema to many Darwinian philosophers as religion

[oldie]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

The infatuation with fear is

Nothing new. It's always existed. It's what keeps we humans and most animal species alive. The reason we have adrenal glands, along with all mammals. Without fear there would be no life on earth as we know it

Oldie

[pyritechips]

Without fear there would be no life on earth as we know it

Well then, to paraphrase an old cliché: Thank Fear I'm alive!

[Paquadez]

Hmm, so this one's come back in a different form.

The old battle between faith - as Oldie says - and science.

Why do they have to battle?

Science backers assume - wrongly in my view - that both religion and faith (the two are in fact different!), are at loggerheads and mount diametrically opposite perspectives.

Well, they don't.

If one pursues Anthropic Theorom, it is rapdily realised that if values of say hydrogen are changed by an ifinitesimal amount, say,
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000001 (I could on: it would actually make no difference! ),
the universe ceases to exist.

Ergo; a reasoning and very powerful mind created all.

Where Darwins theories seem to run against creationist lore, is in natural selection and evolution. Apparently.

Was Darwin 100% right? Few scientists are and bear in mind he was limited in his testing facilities. No clever electron microscopes e.g.!

Let's face it, if Gregor Mendol had had the benefit of modern scientific facilities he may have discovered DNA.

So, lets posit that Darwin was partially right.

If he was totally right, then surely, certain species would by now be showing evolutionary signs towards becoming monkeys. And surely, some types of monkeys would be showing signs of moving towards Chro Magnon Man, for example?

Too little time?

Hmm; as the British countryside vanishes, foxes have evolved, very quickly over twenty years or so, to adapt to their changing environment. First their coats have become grey and second natural selection has weeded out all excepting those with an "Underslung" jaw and thus capable of ripping open plastic garbage bags for food, which a normal fox just can't do.

Christianity proposes creation took place over seven days: well was it really seven days or, as often with the Old Testament (which came from a number of languages including Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Aramaic, Ancient Greek etc) is it possible this translates as simply a very long time?

After the fall, Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden of Eden. OK so far.

However, their sons, Cain and Abel are an interesting study.

After Cain killed Abel he took a wife. Ho hum. Who? His Mom?

No, there were quite obviously other humans outside the Garden of Eden.

Is it possible that these outside were sort of an early experiment of God's? The Mark One?

That they were flawed is a given.

As A Christian (I'm an confirmed Anglican and proud to be so: another story!), I believe absolutely in the garden of Eden and creation: however, as an intellectual and a philosopher I lard my faith with the benefit of the brain God gave me and allows me to use.

Early men were fairly simple: Jewish tribes were simple too. therefore I have to conclude that all the stories in the Old Testament were purposively made simple and at times, allegorical in order that they be understood.

None of this changes my faith, however!

Neither does itchange my acceptance of science.

I believe that science and faith have to learn that neither is mutually exclusive to the other!

Paq