Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305340817' post='2241193']
In other words, not science.[/quote]

Not a scientific consensus.

[quote]I wasn't trying to prove to you the truth of the Catholic religion there. (That's a whole other topic in itself.)
My point was that the reasons real people often have for choosing to convert to a religion often have nothing to do with " functionality and practical usefulness" from an atheistic darwinistic perspective.
Obviously, religions and other belief systems have value for the people holding them (even if it's the value of holding the truth), but that's just stating a truism.
The value of religion cannot be reduced to darwinistic functionality like increasing survival rates or spreading more genes.

This does nothing to explain in darwinian terms why a religion such as Christianity would spread under circumstances of intense persecution (such as during the first three centuries of its existence), where belonging to the religion would do nothing to increase one's chances of survival or reproduction, but, rather, the opposite.[/quote]

Actually this doesn't have to do with how religions can help individuals spread their genes, it's about a religion being "fit" to spread its memes with people as vehicles. I don't think he's off-track, but it's complicated because what different people derive as meaning can vary from person to person and culture to culture and circumstance. It's not a hard science I would say.

I think that in the case of Christianity, the themes of love and forgiveness are strong ones (I'm not going to go into the truth value of religions here, that's a topic for a whole other thread).

And I know that people don't think in Darwinistic terms when they choose to convert to a religion. This is an anthropological view, not a personal reasons view. Like Sloan said in the second video, it's the view of ants (scientists) chartering the movements of a goldfish (someone immersed in experiences which in this case is religious) from outside the fishbowl.

[quote]And this is veering off-topic, but I'd definitely contest the assertion that today Christians are "persecuting" "minorities." Around the world, Christians are far more persecuted than persecuting, and even in modern western countries, society in general is not particularly favorable to devout Christians, even if there is not outright persecution as in certain Islamic and Communist nations.[/quote]

I'm going to have to ask to to elaborate further on this, because everytime so far that someone has said that, they considered even banal things such as the offense they feel in a more secular society to be persecution, which is, IMO an insult to people who really have been persecuted and are being persecuted. Also, not being allowed to limit the rights of others (rights that they have) is not persecution.


[quote]Again, such darwinian scenarios fail to explain how Christianity spread so rapidly during the centuries in which it was violently persecuted. How did Christianity offer any survival benefits to any members of the group? After all, anyone's earthly prospects are better at they sacrifice to the emperor and get promoted, rather than profess faith in Christ, and get thrown to the lions.[/quote]

I've often wondered about this myself, why Christianity was selected out of the bunch of cults that sprang up during that time. But you can't underestimate the political importance of an official religion basically from the time of Theodosius to the Protestant Revolution in Europe such as the case of Catholicism and the non tolerant enforcement of it.

[quote]Read any Catholic book of saints' lives, and you will find many examples of people renouncing worldly possessions, marriage and reproduction for the sake of Christ, and often dying rather than renounce their faith.
Inexplicable in darwinian terms. The best the honest atheist can do is say they are sadly deluded.[/quote]

There are examples of people who sacrifice plenty for other religions as well, and again, this has nothing to do with propagation at the individual level and much less on the propagation of genes. I would say that they're...committed.


[quote]I honestly don't think either religion or atheism can be adequately explained in terms of "memes" and such.
I think it more meaningful and productive [u]if the claims of religious belief and atheist are discussed and debated on their own terms,[/u] rather than this pointless discussion of "memes" and such, which only diverts from the real issues involved.
[/quote]

Oh, they certainly are. Exhaustively.

I don't know, I just thought this was interesting.

Edited May 14, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[dairygirl4u2c]

dawkins would probably say chrisitans letting themselves be martyred is like a moth going into a flame.
you'd have to stretch it, but it could be analogous with that stretch.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305377696' post='2241320']
dawkins would probably say chrisitans letting themselves be martyred is like a moth going into a flame.
you'd have to stretch it, but it could be analogous with that stretch.
[/quote]

Yes, but moths are replying instinctivley to their hardwiring.

I think that [url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090811161345.htm"]this[/url] has more to do with it, with memes (which are not necessarily shared by the majority of the group) analogous to the fungi.

Edited May 14, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305260222' post='2240727']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgOk6r0g5EA[/media]

Here's part one of a debate between David Sloan Wilson, the atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett and Catholic Theologian John Haught on the topic of religion.

[b]
[/b]
[/quote]
this is good stuff. I'm on part two.

Took them six minutes to get through all there credentials though



and the one guy looks like Darwin

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305489817' post='2241919']
this is good stuff. I'm on part two.

Took them six minutes to get through all there credentials though



and the one guy looks like Darwin
[/quote]

He does, doesn't he?

[kafka]

I dont like John Haught's point about the universe or cosmos as a drama, a story or a narrative. I mean this is this is in some sense true, but God is not a story. So I think it is better to see God for what He is and then see all things in God including the universe or cosmos as a whole (even though it is yet to be completed and perfected). The end of the universe (which is in one sense a new beginning) is that God will be [i]all[/i] in all human persons and all things. But we dont need to get to that future point to know that everything has meaning or value because it is in some limited sense a reflection or an image and likeness of God (human persons are children of God so they have the most value) including the universe and cosmos as a whole: past, present and future.

So in that other thread I made the point that evolution (in various forms) exists [i]because[/i] God is Processional. There is your fundamental meaning. Not because there is some drama or story or narrative. The process of creation is God subsuming all things just as He is.

Edited May 15, 2011 by kafka

[xSilverPhinx]

Let me see if I clearly understand what you're saying: so god is everything that existence encompasses in relation to time even though god is outside of time?

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305493953' post='2241945']
Let me see if I clearly understand what you're saying: so god is everything that existence encompasses in relation to time even though god is outside of time?
[/quote]
maybe you understand but remember there is an infinite demarcation. You have to take it for granted that I believe God ultimately created everything out of nothing. That creatures are limited, and God is Infinte, creatures are bound by space and time, and God is not bound by space and time. I'm not a pantheist if that is what you were getting at. But you carefully worded what you said, so I think you have a grasp of what I mean. I cant fully explain it. Sometimes I say that God creates and forms everything just as He is.

Take another example. If you ask me why the universe took such a long time to unfold? Why is the history of the cosmos so vast, seemingly beyond rhyme or reason? I would simply answer that the fundamental or ultimate reason is that God is Eternity. Everything not only points to God, but happens the way it does because God made it the way He is. God does things as He is, because everything that God is/does is One Divine Eternal Act.

But the vastness of space and time encompassing the universe to the present is still very, very limited to the Eternity that is God. Yet it happened the way it did because God is Eternity, because God's creation as a whole is a created reflection of Himself. In the Genesis account God sees that things are good. Why? Because He sees something of Himself in them. But not His actual self.

Why do things spring forth from things? My ultimate answer: God is Processional.
Why is the cosmos complex and intricate? God is Infinite.
Why is everything good? God is Good.
Why is there is sequence in the process of creation? There is order in God.

The future point predicted by Paul in Sacred Scripture is that God will be all in all (human persons and things). This is something of a mystery. I have some idea what it means. I can explain why we are moving in that direction. Why God planned it the way He did. But in another sense I have no idea what it means, because it cannot be fully understood and so explained as well as the fact that it has yet to be seen or experienced.

Edited May 15, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

why is there a creation at all? God is creative.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305496105' post='2241975']
maybe you understand but remember there is an infinite demarcation. You have to take it for granted that I believe God ultimately created everything out of nothing. That creatures are limited, and God is Infinte, creatures are bound by space and time, and God is not bound by space and time. I'm not a pantheist if that is what you were getting at. But you carefully worded what you said, so I think you have a grasp of what I mean. I cant fully explain it. Sometimes I say that God creates and forms everything just as He is.

Take another example. If you ask me why the universe took such a long time to unfold? Why is the history of the cosmos so vast, seemingly beyond rhyme or reason? I would simply answer that the fundamental or ultimate reason is that God is Eternity. Everything not only points to God, but happens the way it does because God made it the way He is. God does things as He is, because everything that God is/does is One Divine Eternal Act.

But the vastness of space and time encompassing the universe to the present is still very, very limited to the Eternity that is God. Yet it happened the way it did because God is Eternity, because God's creation as a whole is a created reflection of Himself. In the Genesis account God sees that things are good. Why? Because He sees something of Himself in them. But not His actual self.

Why do things spring forth from things? My ultimate answer: God is Processional.
Why is the cosmos complex and intricate? God is Infinite.
Why is everything good? God is Good.
Why is there is sequence in the process of creation? There is order in God.

The future point predicted by Paul in Sacred Scripture is that God will be all in all (human persons and things). This is something of a mystery. I have some idea what it means. I can explain why we are moving in that direction. Why God planned it the way He did. But in another sense I have no idea what it means, because it cannot be fully understood and so explained as well as the fact that it has yet to be seen or experienced.
[/quote]

Your description of god is actually interesting because to at least it looks like it has a certain pantheistic flavour though leaning towards theism. I would describe myself as an atheistic pantheist.

[quote]You have to take it for granted that I believe God ultimately created everything out of nothing. [/quote]

I'm going to sound nit-picky here, but what is 'nothing' if god is infinitely everything everywhere?

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305503233' post='2242020']
Your description of god is actually interesting because to at least it looks like it has a certain pantheistic flavour though leaning towards theism. I would describe myself as an atheistic pantheist.
[/quote]
some verses of Sacred Scripture have a 'pantheistic flavor' to them But they have to be interpreted with care and in light of everything else we know about God from Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium. Examples:

{1:16} . . . All things were created through him and in him.
{1:17} And he is before all, and in him all things continue. (Collosians)

{43:28} Through him, the end of their journey is confirmed, and by his word, all things fit together.
{43:29} We can say much, and yet still lack for words. But the consummation of our words is this: He is in all things. (Sirach)

{15:28} And when all things will have been subjected to him, then even the Son himself will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all. (Corinthians)

It is exciting trying to figure what this all means, and still lack for words always.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305503233' post='2242020']
I'm going to sound nit-picky here, but what is 'nothing' if god is infinitely everything everywhere?
[/quote]
without something created out of nothing there would be no space or time or anything; so God could not be "everywhere" or "everywhen" or "everything to all things"

space and time proceed from the original something God created out of nothing.

Here is a sequence I wrote that didnt make it into my Creation commentary, but it will visually help you understand what I mean. It is a little meditation on these three verses from Scripture:

"In the beginning, God created heaven and earth."
"My kingdom is not of this world. . ."”
"the harvest is the consummation of the age. . ."”

World-Age

World and age proceed from the something God created out of nothing. World, focusing on the spatial element of creation, and age, focusing the temporal element of creation are indirectly expressed in the first verse of Genesis, “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.” There would be no world if God did not create something out of nothing, and there would no beginning of an age if there was nothing. There would only be God, “from whom everything that exists has been formed.... His being is in Himself and He does not derive what He is from anywhere else, but possesses what He is from Himself and in Himself. He is infinite.... He is always outside of space because He is not restricted; He is always before time because time comes from Him." (Saint Hilary, The Teachings of the Church Fathers, by John R. Willis S.J.)

So both world and age proceed from the something God created out of nothing. World and age are distinct and yet they are of the same nature since both proceed from the something God created out of nothing. World and age are inherent to the something God created out of nothing and are inherent to all things God created out of nothing. World and age are inherent to everything which God created out of nothing. Everything God created out of nothing, from the beginning, to today and into the future makes up a world-age.

Age implies world and world implies an age since an age began when God created heaven and earth out of nothing. A world became when God created heaven and earth out of nothing. Both world and age were put into effect out of nothing by One direct creative act of God’s power. World and age are two ways of expressing creation and all pertaining to it. World and age is used many times by Jesus and the Sacred Writers to express different aspects, developments, and realizations (past, present, and future) of everything that is. And the word kingdom is also used many times, in much in the same way.

I like to use the connected term "world-age" because Jesus used world and age a lot and it sort of sums up all space and time and all things. It can be used for the two distinct processes or phases of creation.

Edited May 16, 2011 by kafka

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305377501' post='2241319']
Not a scientific consensus.[/quote]
Not science at all. Simply vague untested hypotheses, and weak analogies of religious belief to biological evolution.

"Consensus" in such cases is irrelevant. It's pathetic that apparently at some point popular "science" became some sort of democratic popularity contest of opinions of those possessing PhDs.



[quote]Actually this doesn't have to do with how religions can help individuals spread their genes, it's about a religion being "fit" to spread its memes with people as vehicles. I don't think he's off-track, but it's complicated because what different people derive as meaning can vary from person to person and culture to culture and circumstance.[/quote]
However, from an atheistic materialist standpoint, "religions" and "memes" have absolutely no existence outside the minds of individual persons, and thus cannot be treated as physical things like genes or viruses.
If they want to make an analogy between immaterial ideas and viruses and such, that's one thing, but it's merely that, an analogy. It proves absolutely nothing scientifically.

[quote]It's not a hard science I would say.[/quote]
Far from it.

[quote]I think that in the case of Christianity, the themes of love and forgiveness are strong ones (I'm not going to go into the truth value of religions here, that's a topic for a whole other thread). [/quote]
But these themes are rather irrelevant in strictly Darwinist materialist terms.

[quote]And I know that people don't think in Darwinistic terms when they choose to convert to a religion. This is an anthropological view, not a personal reasons view. Like Sloan said in the second video, it's the view of ants (scientists) chartering the movements of a goldfish (someone immersed in experiences which in this case is religious) from outside the fishbowl. [/quote]
Whatever, but they don't mesh up with the facts of actual human motivations. For many, the primary benefits of faith are spiritual and otherworldy, rather than related to earthly success and survival (the only things of consequence in materialistic darwinism).


[quote]I'm going to have to ask to to elaborate further on this, because everytime so far that someone has said that, they considered even banal things such as the offense they feel in a more secular society to be persecution, which is, IMO an insult to people who really have been persecuted and are being persecuted. Also, not being allowed to limit the rights of others (rights that they have) is not persecution.[/quote]
Maybe we can elaborate on it in another thread, because, as I said, it's rather off-topic.

Let's just say I'm far from convinced that atheists in the world today are more persecuted than Christians. The vast majority of modern atheist claims of "persecution" are indeed banal and an insult to people who really have been persecuted (had to see a creche scene - the horror!). And arguments about who's persecuting whom tend to be rather pointless and unproductive.

But there are parts of the world where Christians are imprisoned for practicing their Faith by atheistic governments. (China, North Korea, Vietnam)



[quote]I've often wondered about this myself, why Christianity was selected out of the bunch of cults that sprang up during that time.[/quote]
As a Christian, I of course, have an answer, but maybe that's another topic.

[quote]But you can't underestimate the political importance of an official religion basically from the time of Theodosius to the Protestant Revolution in Europe such as the case of Catholicism and the non tolerant enforcement of it.[/quote]
Yes, the hypothesis of explaining Christian religion in terms of "functionality and practical usefulness" (or "social utility" as I've seen it called elsewhere) is nice when applied to societies where the religion is already politically and socially dominant (whether it's medieval Europe, or 1950s America).

However, it simply cannot account for how Christianity became dominant in the first place, and conveniently ignores its founding and the the first three centuries of its existence.
The Christian religion was heavily persecuted from its founding (Christ Himself was put to death for His teachings!) and continued to be persecuted for many years afterwards. There's simply not much material "practical functionality" or "social utility" to a Faith that will get you persecuted or killed.
(Much less does it explain why many would choose torture and death rather than renounce their Faith.)

Ignoring this period of Christian history (and other places where the Faith grows under persecution) is a glaring oversite.


[quote]There are examples of people who sacrifice plenty for other religions as well, and again, this has nothing to do with propagation at the individual level and much less on the propagation of genes. I would say that they're...committed.[/quote]
Again, completely inexplicable in Darwinian terms.



[quote]Oh, they certainly are. Exhaustively.

I don't know, I just thought this was interesting.[/quote]
Fair enough. I just think it's a silly and seriously flawed hypothesis.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305505307' post='2242042']
some verses of Sacred Scripture have a 'pantheistic flavor' to them But they have to be interpreted with care and in light of everything else we know about God from Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium. Examples:

{1:16} . . . All things were created through him and in him.
{1:17} And he is before all, and in him all things continue. (Collosians)

{43:28} Through him, the end of their journey is confirmed, and by his word, all things fit together.
{43:29} We can say much, and yet still lack for words. But the consummation of our words is this: He is in all things. (Sirach)

{15:28} And when all things will have been subjected to him, then even the Son himself will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all. (Corinthians)

It is exciting trying to figure what this all means, and still lack for words always.


without something created out of nothing there would be no space or time or anything; so God could not be "everywhere" or "everywhen" or "everything to all things"

space and time proceed from the original something God created out of nothing.

Here is a sequence I wrote that didnt make it into my Creation commentary, but it will visually help you understand what I mean. It is a little meditation on these three verses from Scripture:

"In the beginning, God created heaven and earth."
"My kingdom is not of this world. . ."”
"the harvest is the consummation of the age. . ."”

World-Age

World and age proceed from the something God created out of nothing. World, focusing on the spatial element of creation, and age, focusing the temporal element of creation are indirectly expressed in the first verse of Genesis, “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.” There would be no world if God did not create something out of nothing, and there would no beginning of an age if there was nothing. There would only be God, “from whom everything that exists has been formed.... His being is in Himself and He does not derive what He is from anywhere else, but possesses what He is from Himself and in Himself. He is infinite.... He is always outside of space because He is not restricted; He is always before time because time comes from Him." (Saint Hilary, The Teachings of the Church Fathers, by John R. Willis S.J.)

So both world and age proceed from the something God created out of nothing. World and age are distinct and yet they are of the same nature since both proceed from the something God created out of nothing. World and age are inherent to the something God created out of nothing and are inherent to all things God created out of nothing. World and age are inherent to everything which God created out of nothing. Everything God created out of nothing, from the beginning, to today and into the future makes up a world-age.

Age implies world and world implies an age since an age began when God created heaven and earth out of nothing. A world became when God created heaven and earth out of nothing. Both world and age were put into effect out of nothing by One direct creative act of God’s power. World and age are two ways of expressing creation and all pertaining to it. World and age is used many times by Jesus and the Sacred Writers to express different aspects, developments, and realizations (past, present, and future) of everything that is. And the word kingdom is also used many times, in much in the same way.

I like to use the connected term "world-age" because Jesus used world and age a lot and it sort of sums up all space and time and all things. It can be used for the two distinct processes or phases of creation.
[/quote]

How is the creation commentary coming along?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305571564' post='2242387']
Not science at all. Simply vague untested hypotheses, [u]and weak analogies of religious belief to biological evolution[/u].

"Consensus" in such cases is irrelevant. It's pathetic that apparently at some point popular "science" became some sort of democratic popularity contest of opinions of those possessing PhDs.[/quote]

Not religious belief, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_evolution"]cultural evolution[/url] being analogous to biological evolution. It's a sociological field that spans way over more than religious belief.

See here: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory"]dual inheritance theory[/url].

It may have it's problems and limitations, but it does make sense on some level. It would give some insight into why Christians cherry pick from the bible for instance...


[quote]However, from an atheistic materialist standpoint, "religions" and "memes" have absolutely no existence outside the minds of individual persons, and thus cannot be treated as physical things like genes or viruses.
If they want to make an analogy between immaterial ideas and viruses and such, that's one thing, but it's merely that, an analogy. It proves absolutely nothing scientifically.[/quote]

Yes, but viruses[i] need [/i]a metabolising cell in order to reproduce, which makes them obligatory parasites, otherwise they're just an organic machines with genetic material. Even whether viruses are alive because of this is an open question (though they're considered by most to be a different sort of 'alive'). Without cells, no more viruses and nothing more for them to infect and use to reproduce. Just as without human minds, no more abstract ideas and concepts. That's as far as the analogy goes.


[quote]Far from it.[/quote]

What do you consider social sciences to be?


[quote]But these themes are rather irrelevant in strictly Darwinist materialist terms.[/quote]

Not really. But you're the one adding 'materialist' here, while I'm just using darwinism as a mechanism that could be applied to the selection of ideas.
In the foggy amorphous cloud of ideas that is an ideology, themes such as love and forgiveness can be selectively contagious, whether true or not.


[quote]Whatever, but they don't mesh up with the facts of actual human motivations. For many, [u]the primary benefits of faith are spiritual and other worldly[/u], rather than related to earthly success and survival (the only things of consequence in materialistic darwinism).[/quote]

Again, you're adding materialism here. As for the underlined part, well there you have it! A meaning system which does translate to benefits in the worldly realm too, whether it brings happiness, comfort etc based on good ideas and themes.

[quote]Maybe we can elaborate on it in another thread, because, as I said, it's rather off-topic.

Let's just say I'm far from convinced that atheists in the world today are more persecuted than Christians. The vast majority of modern atheist claims of "persecution" are indeed banal and an insult to people who really have been persecuted (had to see a creche scene - the horror!). And arguments about who's persecuting whom tend to be rather pointless and unproductive.

But there are parts of the world where Christians are imprisoned for practicing their Faith by atheistic governments. (China, North Korea, Vietnam)[/quote]

It is indeed unproductive, because everybody's being persecuted by somebody these days.

Atheists are killed for being 'godless' in some parts of the religious world. Atheists aren't allowed to hold public office in the U.S., and if you want to go into the banal part of it, atheists are persecuted because some religious people consider almost everything to be an offense to their beliefs (sorry man, but those are offended whiners, not persecuted).

And that's not leaving out Christianity's historic track record of persecution such as the Inquisition and Dark Ages.

[quote]As a Christian, I of course, have an answer, but maybe that's another topic.[/quote]

As an atheist, I would also ask, why was Islam also selected and how do you know that you're right and they're wrong?


[quote]Yes, the hypothesis of explaining Christian religion in terms of "functionality and practical usefulness" (or "social utility" as I've seen it called elsewhere) is nice when applied to societies where the religion is already politically and socially dominant (whether it's medieval Europe, or 1950s America).

However, it simply cannot account for how Christianity became dominant in the first place, and conveniently ignores its founding and the the first three centuries of its existence.
The Christian religion was heavily persecuted from its founding (Christ Himself was put to death for His teachings!) and continued to be persecuted for many years afterwards. There's simply not much material "practical functionality" or "social utility" to a Faith that will get you persecuted or killed.
(Much less does it explain why many would choose torture and death rather than renounce their Faith.)

Ignoring this period of Christian history (and other places where the Faith grows under persecution) is a glaring oversite.[/quote]

It's a topic I'm going to have to look more into.

But people also choose torture and even death for other ideals, such as family, friends, country. And it still doesn't give Christianity the edge because there are other religions or philosophies for which other endure incredible pain and death, out of their free will.


[quote]Fair enough. I just think it's a silly and seriously flawed hypothesis.[/quote]

If you were to apply it to another religion (one that you don't think is true) then would it be so flawed?

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305572904' post='2242402']
How is the creation commentary coming along?
[/quote]
I have seven or eight verses left and am at an impasse. Lost my momentum. Havent written a post for a month and I need to make some revisions

But I am really burned out. I think I need to just shelf it and return to it next year. I need prayer, rest, food, sun, love and beauty to get refocused

how are you? I see you are holding your own here with heroic patience. Not easy to do. Btw I watched five of the eight parts of that debate. Will probably finish on Sunday

edit to add another verse of Scripture that has a 'pantheistic flavor' from the Gospel of John:

{12:32} And when I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself.”

Here Jesus predicts his death on the Cross and the nature of it. My favorite verse in the Bible.

Edited May 17, 2011 by kafka