What are the Spiritual qualities of Evolution?

[Random]

The Spirituality of Evolution is that it's a step toward taking "human" out of the primacy of the universe as we regard it. It opens the window to thinking about how we categorize organisms and our connection to "natural" systems rather than our perceived dominion over them and separation from them.

It is yet another folk inflection of the elementary idea.

Thanks, Brendan, an excellent answer.

It is indeed a significant revelation to come to understand how our religiously inflated sense of Self-importance is misplaced and even misconcieved.

By "the elementary idea" of which Evolution is a folk inflection, do you perhaps mean the idea of Interdependence upon which the Buddhist might come to rest his or her understanding of Reality?

 

[Random]

The Spirituality of Evolution is that it's a step toward taking "human" out of the primacy of the universe as we regard it. It opens the window to thinking about how we categorize organisms and our connection to "natural" systems rather than our perceived dominion over them and separation from them.

It is yet another folk inflection of the elementary idea.

Thanks, Brendan, an excellent answer.

It is indeed a significant revelation to come to understand how our religiously inflated sense of Self-importance is misplaced and even misconcieved.

By "the elementary idea" of which Evolution is a folk inflection, do you perhaps mean the idea of Interdependence upon which the Buddhist might come to rest his or her understanding of Reality, for example?

 

[Willamena]

I do not think the question is too deep for a moments reflection. Perhaps someone out there will understand, hmm?

But will they answer?

I didn't understand the question.

 

[Quiddity]

I meant that, just like so many here, the eminent philosopher, Nature-worshipper and celebrity Atheist Dan Dennett would reject any attempt to bridge the gap between "natural" and "supernatural", whereas you or I might see no real distinction.

Nature-worshippers eh? Never heard of them…… ……So instead of worshipping amulets and slabs of stone, we now bow to the power of the atom and all that is material? Sounds pretty dogmatic.

I haven’t read any of his works. Does he have Epiphenomenalistic leanings? Where our thoughts flow out of the brain as gall from the liver, or urine from the kidneys (Bernhard Vogt)……what a visual eh? Can you imagine the day when they can break down your thoughts into a collection of atoms?

But remember that only people that attach meaning are infected with such a disease. Those that refuse to extend their faculties beyond the material world are immune to such things. Or are they?

 

[doppelganger]

By "the elementary idea" of which Evolution is a folk inflection, do you perhaps mean the idea of Interdependence upon which the Buddhist might come to rest his or her understanding of Reality, for example?

Yes. That would be another folk inflection. Or the Christian atonement to the Father through finding "Christ in me," the Taoist recognition that all judgments create and encompass their opposites, or "Indra's Net," in which every gem is reflected in every other gem. It is the elementary idea that identity is a construct dependent upon limitations of perspective. The Kingdom of God is all around us, but people do not perceive it.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings, Aup!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceDLimber
Science addresses the "how" of existence; religion the "Who" and "why."

Science (Human Curiosity) will address all questions, whether you want to allow it or not. Creation and evolution are questions of science and not of religion.

It isn't a question of what someone wants, but rather of capability.

I agree that evolution as commonly defined is primarily a scientific question (though IOV religion evolves over time, too).

But creation remains a religious question because science really can't much address what happened before the Big Bang (or, indeed, "before" time itself).

Regards,

Bruce

 

[doppelganger]

But creation remains a religious question because science really can't much address what happened before the Big Bang (or, indeed, "before" time itself).

That depends on what you mean by "creation." If the idea is objectified, then religion can't address it either, other than just make something up and refuse to question what one has imagined. But investigating the nature of objects is not the proper function of religion. "Creation" when it is not objectified outside of thought is the realm of religion.

 

[Quiddity]

"Creation" when it is not objectified outside of thought is the realm of religion.

But religion is/can be objective, can it not?

 

[doppelganger]

But religion is/can be objective, can it not?

What do you mean by "objective"?

 

[Quiddity]

What do you mean by "objective"?

Not subjective...

I see now that we may mean something different by it. By objective, I mean one can reason to it outside of faith and self perception.

 

[doppelganger]

I see now that we may mean something different by it. By objective, I mean one can reason to it outside of faith and self perception.

By 'objectify' I mean to disassociate a thought that defines some "thing" from the "thing" that thought defines.

One can imagine that one's perceptions and interpretations (whether in science or religion) have a reality absent the subjective context in which they arise, and one may usefully go about one's day in most regards operating on the assumption that they do. But a careful examination of what that apparent knowledge represents shows it to be something other than we assume.

 

[doppelganger]

bump.

 

[gmelrod]

I see no problem with offering a teleological (meaning moveing toward a purpose) account of human development with evolution as the mechanism through which this is accomplished.

The philosopher Hegel claimed that human history was teleological in that there was a definet goal that was being approached. But he also said the necessity of that goal could only be viewed in hindsight. I think the same could apply to evolution. God as the prime mover uses evolution and natural selection (both of which have no necessairy goal in themselves) as tools to create and develop humanity and the magnificent diversity of the universe. Because natural selection has no necessary purpose is precisly why it would make such a great tool for God's use. with it anything can be created. On earth it gave rise to human. On another planet orbiting another sun could be a compltly diffrent type of inteligent life that was created through diffrent events but the same fundamental mechanics.

When I debate this issue in the person I often use the example of the bartender. You walk into a bar and order a drink. The bartender reaches below and produces a premixed drink that is already preparted. You have the drink right away. In another bar the bartender places a glass on the counter pulls bottles from behind him tosess them in the air, juggles them, pours them out, pulls out another glass, makes another concotion, tosses them both into a shaker, mixes it and then poors it out into a large glass in front of you. It tastes just like the other drink. Who is the better bartender?
The one you produced the drink instantly, or the one who took more time but made the drink with such style, flare, and skill?

I think evolution is like the second bartender. It is so much more complex, skilful, and beautiful then just, *poof* here is everything. And it is a common claim that we gain access to the divine through the beautiful. To me it is in the beauty of evolution in which its spitual nurishment can be found.

 

[Quiddity]

By 'objectify' I mean to disassociate a thought that defines some "thing" from the "thing" that thought defines.

One can imagine that one's perceptions and interpretations (whether in science or religion) have a reality absent the subjective context in which they arise, and one may usefully go about one's day in most regards operating on the assumption that they do. But a careful examination of what that apparent knowledge represents shows it to be something other than we assume.

Can you give me an example. I can't quite wrap my pee-wee mind around it...

 

[gmelrod]

By 'objectify' I mean to disassociate a thought that defines some "thing" from the "thing" that thought defines.

One can imagine that one's perceptions and interpretations (whether in science or religion) have a reality absent the subjective context in which they arise, and one may usefully go about one's day in most regards operating on the assumption that they do. But a careful examination of what that apparent knowledge represents shows it to be something other than we assume.

This is true. All that our senses have access to is appearences who's source we have no access to. Since this non-sensible cause only acts through appearences there is no real value in discussing it. Even though our world is filled with appearence we cannot get past them. There is no value in taking about something of which nothing cant be said, namely the supersensible world. Objectification is impossible.

 

[doppelganger]

Even though our world is filled with appearence we cannot get past them. There is no value in taking about something of which nothing cant be said, namely the supersensible world. Objectification is impossible.

However, in some places, this "supersensible world" creeps in and upsets the perceived utility of our models. Quantum mechanics and ecology come to mind.

 

[gmelrod]

However, in some places, this "supersensible world" creeps in and upsets the perceived utility of our models. Quantum mechanics and ecology come to mind.

But when this happens these things are not supersenible. They are mearly appearences to which our power of observation had not yet been turned. Because we can see them they cannot be considered to be part of the supersenible. It is true that the sensible world expands but such expansion is only through appearences. We still have no access to the supernatual and cannot say anything about it.

 

[doppelganger]

But when this happens these things are not supersenible. They are mearly appearences to which our power of observation had not yet been turned. Because we can see them they cannot be considered to be part of the supersenible. It is true that the sensible world expands but such expansion is only through appearences. We still have no access to the supernatual and cannot say anything about it.

That depends on how you look at it. The observation itself determines the appearances in quantum physics. So too in Ecology. It's also true in other modes of knowledge, though it's easier to see in systems both too small and too large to "visualize." How one defines the system determines the data one collects and organizes. It's not so much the "supersensible world" itself we are perceiving (because we can't perceive it), but the effect of there being a "supersensible world" that isn't our interpretations and models on the predictability of those models.

 

[gmelrod]

That depends on how you look at it. The observation itself determines the appearances in quantum physics. So too in Ecology. It's also true in other modes of knowledge, though it's easier to see in systems both too small and too large to "visualize." How one defines the system determines the data one collects and organizes. It's not so much the "supersensible world" itself we are perceiving (because we can't perceive it), but the effect of there being a "supersensible world" that isn't our interpretations and models on the predictability of those models.

I do not deny the existance of a supersensible world just that we cannot do anything with it. The appearences we have access to do not inform us as to the nature of SSW (I am tired of tying the whole thing). As a matter of practical action we must deal only with appearences. Though I would note that Kant does interesting work with the supersensible.

 

[doppelganger]

I do not deny the existance of a supersensible world just that we cannot do anything with it.

Yes. With that I quite agree.