Originally posted by Evensong:
On the other hand, who knows whether a slug has free will or not.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:If you follow the link, you'll find a number of quotations from Polkinghorne discussing science and theology.
I also think we need to maintain distinctions - the doctrine of creation is different from a scientific cosmology, and we should resist the temptation, which sometimes scientists give in to, to try to assimilate the concepts of theology to the concepts of science.
quote:It rather depends on whether you want to insist that scientists with a faith are not true believers because they understand science and refuse to accept a literal reading of the Bible, or not.
Using physics that is beyond me, Prof Cox explains how his fridge shows that there is no afterlife (thermodynamics, apparently). But then he qualifies himself. “Philosophers would rightly point out that physicists making bland and sweeping statements is naive. There is naivety in just saying there’s no God; it’s b------s,” he says. “People have thought about this. People like Leibniz and Kant. They’re not idiots. So you’ve got to at least address that.”
quote:I don't know what it thinks its getting at. Trying to compare science (a human activity) with God (who is not a human activity) is a category error.
Originally posted by Evensong:
What does this picture say to you?
Does it contradict contemporary understandings of the physical and biological sciences?
quote:One of these paragraphs is steaming bullshit. You can take your pick as to which one. But at least one of them must be bullshit.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Apparently he also wrote “God can and will bring out of the sufferings of this life a good that so overshadows them that this life will be seen in retrospect to have been worth it." which, IMO, is pious, arrogant, unjustifiable, antisocial, uncaring, victim-creating, wishful thinking b******t. (for starters).
The universe we inhabit is so diverse, so magnificent, so astounding, so beautiful and so challenging I really don't understand why some people find it necessary to invent unnecessary, demeaning and damaging alternatives. (OK - other than power, sex, control, money, sex, fear, sex, psychopathy, job-creation....I don't understand why).
quote:It says to me that somebody has no understanding of clean design.
Originally posted by Evensong:
What does this picture say to you?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:I would go with this. God is in and through everything, not 'tweaking' at all, just there. If God wasn't then nothing would be imo.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think it's about a literal reading of the bible or creation vs science. I'm thinking outside that square with more of a view that Aristotle and Aquinas propound.
The idea that if God were to withdraw from the world, it would cease to exist.
Like Ed Feser says:
" The world is not an ....object [independent of God] in the sense of something that might carry on if God were to “go away”; it is more like the music produced by a musician, which exists only when [she] plays and vanishes the moment [she] stops."
quote:I think the person behind the picture was trying to say something complementary about religion, or about science and religion answering different questions. Possibly if I'm generous they were even trying to say that science tells us what there is and how it works, and theology addresses why there is anything at all. But it's clear as mud.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Whoever put it together apparently thinks that theists are incredibly simple-minded. It's a lot less clear what he/she thinks about science--the jumble of random crap on that panel doesn't seem particularly complimentary to me.
quote:I totally agree. The array of really shitty 1950s-esque switches and dials is distracting, I'm like oh that looks like it's off an oven, off a dash-8 control panel etc.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It might be trying to get at a sensible point, but it's not making it.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:As a philosopher, I value your opinion here.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I don't know what it thinks its getting at. Trying to compare science (a human activity) with God (who is not a human activity) is a category error.
Originally posted by Evensong:
What does this picture say to you?
Does it contradict contemporary understandings of the physical and biological sciences?
Is it thinking about science as an activity that studies things (pure science), or as an activity that controls things (applied science, engineering, medicine, etc), or does it mean by science the subject matter of the sciences?
It also risks portraying God as someone who switches things on and off, and otherwise leaves them alone.
It might be trying to get at a sensible point, but it's not making it.
quote:You mean it isn't?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The first time I saw a Darwin fish, I thought it was something the creationists dreamed up to poke fun at the other side.
quote:I can see it may be intended to suggest that. The problem is that it may also suggest a lot of other things, some of which are at odds with that point.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Might the picture suggest that if God were to remove Godself from the world then it would cease to exist? Like the music stopping when the musician stopped playing?
quote:Isn't the reverse equally true, that theologists should not try to give in to the temptation to try to assimilate the concepts of science to the concepts of theology?
I also think we need to maintain distinctions - the doctrine of creation is different from a scientific cosmology, and we should resist the temptation, which sometimes scientists give in to, to try to assimilate the concepts of theology to the concepts of science
John Polkinghorne
quote:It could. Or it could accord with a deist clockmaker god. It's ambiguous like that.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Do you think it could accord with the argument from motion?
quote:All these conclusions based on "our understanding of thermodynamics" are valid for a closed system. If God is acting from outside the thing we call a universe, then God's actions don't have to increase entropy within the universe, because we're not talking about a closed system.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
A theory of God as motion would suggest God being a power that reduces entropy - against our understanding of thermodynamics.
quote:I think that's right. Going by the fact that mousethief found the same picture labelled man and woman, I think all that happened is that someone wrote God and Science over Man and Woman. I'd call that pretty sloppy thinking.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To me, the picture just says "sloppy thinking".
quote:Dah. There is only ONE tenuous thread of my consciousness. I doubt (Brit. understatement) universes spawn each other. Or leak in to each other.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is so out of date that it may safely be ignored. The hot thing, in the circles I move in, is quantum mechanics. If, every time there is a new path a new universe is generated, then the number of universes is infinite. And if there is a you in many of those universes (all the universes in which you were run over yesterday by a bus may safely be ignored) then you have done, or not done, just about everything. So: how does God judge you, when that bus finally puts paid to your existence? He's sitting there with an infinite number of versions of you, good and bad and mediocre. I cannot tell you, the pleasures that may be gotten from contemplating these things, but I believe such joys are closed to theologians. It can only be done in fiction.
quote:The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system entropy increases or stays constant. If the universe is a closed system then entropy will increase - which is suggested by the increasing expansion and reduction in energy across the universe. The God in motion idea is suggesting that God as the centre of everything would be reducing entropy and against the second law of thermodynamics, whether God is within or outside that closed system.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:All these conclusions based on "our understanding of thermodynamics" are valid for a closed system. If God is acting from outside the thing we call a universe, then God's actions don't have to increase entropy within the universe, because we're not talking about a closed system.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
A theory of God as motion would suggest God being a power that reduces entropy - against our understanding of thermodynamics.
If you want a closed system including God, you need a way of measuring the entropy of God.
quote:As of said 'ere munts ago, God is non-entropic. Unbounded. A greater infinity than the unbounded multiverse. Whether God IS or not, the multiverse has no entropy for a start. And God is. Because Jesus. We have infinitely underestimated His endlessness.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:All these conclusions based on "our understanding of thermodynamics" are valid for a closed system. If God is acting from outside the thing we call a universe, then God's actions don't have to increase entropy within the universe, because we're not talking about a closed system.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
A theory of God as motion would suggest God being a power that reduces entropy - against our understanding of thermodynamics.
If you want a closed system including God, you need a way of measuring the entropy of God.
quote:I don't think the argument from motion is thinking of God as motion. This is one of those cases where the meaning of the word has changed, but the name of the argument has stuck. Modern translations talk about the argument from change.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system entropy increases or stays constant. If the universe is a closed system then entropy will increase - which is suggested by the increasing expansion and reduction in energy across the universe. The God in motion idea is suggesting that God as the centre of everything would be reducing entropy and against the second law of thermodynamics, whether God is within or outside that closed system.
quote:Thank you. That's what I thought.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It could.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Do you think it could accord with the argument from motion?
quote:That's what I thought it was disproving. i.e. a clockmaker God where God made the world then left it alone. I see the on/off switch as the energy which fuels the world at each moment. Not just at the begining (e.g the big bang).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It could. Or it could accord with a deist clockmaker god. It's ambiguous like that.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Do you think it could accord with the argument from motion?
quote:I'm sorry to leap back to this point, but it seems to me to be the most interesting interpretation of the picture.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think it's about a literal reading of the bible or creation vs science. I'm thinking outside that square with more of a view that Aristotle and Aquinas propound.
The idea that if God were to withdraw from the world, it would cease to exist.
Like Ed Feser says:
" The world is not an ....object [independent of God] in the sense of something that might carry on if God were to “go away”; it is more like the music produced by a musician, which exists only when [she] plays and vanishes the moment [she] stops."
quote:Yes, I think a kind of withdrawal is necessary. Not for existence (I think nothing would exist at all without God, thus I like the switch analogy in the graphic) but for freedom. Without the way things work, including earthquakes and viruses, there would be no evolution and therefore no freedom.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You could also argue that God has withdrawn from the world. I guess most Christians would not hold this view, but I have heard it expressed by others. For example, God does not stop earthquakes or the ebola virus, so this is a kind of withdrawal.
Now I am thinking of the Jewish mystical idea of tzimtzum, which is a kind of withdrawal, also put forward by Simone Weil, but this is rather different. Here withdrawal is actually necessary for existence.
quote:Even if the first part is true - which I don't think it is (for boring technical reasons, I simply don't accept that evolution is only caused by pressure from negative natural forces like earthquakes and viruses. In fact the vast majority are caused by selection competition between individuals and between species without any need for external pressures) - I can't parse why the latter would be true. Why does there need to be freedom to have evolution? What does that even mean? How is a slug free? Free from - or to do - what?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, I think a kind of withdrawal is necessary. Not for existence (I think nothing would exist at all without God, thus I like the switch analogy in the graphic) but for freedom. Without the way things work, including earthquakes and viruses, there would be no evolution and therefore no freedom.
quote:As mr cheesy has just said, I'm not sure what freedom means here, but there is an old argument that God's non-intervention is important for intelligibility. That is, if God is intervening all the time, nature becomes chaotic. Of course, maybe God is intervening all the time - that is the beauty of guesswork, anything is possible.
Yes, I think a kind of withdrawal is necessary. Not for existence (I think nothing would exist at all without God, thus I like the switch analogy in the graphic) but for freedom. Without the way things work, including earthquakes and viruses, there would be no evolution and therefore no freedom.
quote:Thanks for your reply mr cheesy. You're one of the few (besides Boogie - who seems to see the picture in a similar way to me) to be interested in my original idea.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I'm sorry to leap back to this point, but it seems to me to be the most interesting interpretation of the picture.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think it's about a literal reading of the bible or creation vs science. I'm thinking outside that square with more of a view that Aristotle and Aquinas propound.
The idea that if God were to withdraw from the world, it would cease to exist.
Like Ed Feser says:
" The world is not an ....object [independent of God] in the sense of something that might carry on if God were to “go away”; it is more like the music produced by a musician, which exists only when [she] plays and vanishes the moment [she] stops."
First it doesn't imply that to me. It simply seems to suggest that the deity has access to the top switch, which kills everything, whereas science has control of switches to control things at some magnitude below that.
I'm no electrician, but even this concept has some problematic issues. It is possible to ruin electronics without touching the main off switch.
But I suppose I'm a more troubled with this:
"The idea that if God were to withdraw from the world, it would cease to exist."
That seems to me to be a statement which one could only arrive at with a preconceived idea of what God is like. Taking this image on one level one might argue it is indicating that the deity has access to the off-switch (which he may - or may not - have manufactured) but I don't see how it follows that withdrawal would make the universe cease to exist. Presumably this box of electronics would continue to function even if the engineer went away or died, no?
I appreciate that I'm stretching the illustration to breaking point, but I suggest that is also what you're doing above, Evensong.
To me it is a perfectly reasonable position to state that God is Dead. That the creator existed at some point, but we're living in a post-creator existence - whatever that means.
quote:The main point of the picture to me is not the off switch but the ON switch. God is the power that fuels the natural world - indeed the whole created order.
It simply seems to suggest that the deity has access to the top switch, which kills everything, whereas science has control of switches to control things at some magnitude below that.
I'm no electrician, but even this concept has some problematic issues. It is possible to ruin electronics without touching the main off switch.
quote:It is indeed a preconceived idea of what God is like. But it is my understanding this is the idea of what God is like derived from scripture and christian tradition. The more common preconceived notion prevalent today that came about from 18th century thought is the idea of the clockmaker God: the one that created the world and then withdrew from it.
But I suppose I'm a more troubled with this:
"The idea that if God were to withdraw from the world, it would cease to exist."
That seems to me to be a statement which one could only arrive at with a preconceived idea of what God is like.
quote:According to the above notion of scripture and tradition (Aquinas' via Aristotle most famously), if the engineer went away or died, the switch would go to off and nothing would exist at all. How can the box of electronics continue to exist if it has no power source?
Taking this image on one level one might argue it is indicating that the deity has access to the off-switch (which he may - or may not - have manufactured) but I don't see how it follows that withdrawal would make the universe cease to exist. Presumably this box of electronics would continue to function even if the engineer went away or died, no?
quote:I think most Christians DO think God has withdrawn from the world in terms of natural processes and the natural order: it somehow happens powered entirely by itself. This is from 18th century philosophy. A new belief system from the older one: the watchmaker, clockwork God. As opposed to the older one that says it is in God that we live and move and have our being.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You could also argue that God has withdrawn from the world. I guess most Christians would not hold this view, but I have heard it expressed by others. For example, God does not stop earthquakes or the ebola virus, so this is a kind of withdrawal.
quote:OK, that's fine, but clearly it has nothing to do with the image you've introduced, and instead is the lens through which you are viewing the photo.
Originally posted by Evensong:
It is indeed a preconceived idea of what God is like. But it is my understanding this is the idea of what God is like derived from scripture and christian tradition.
quote:Not sure it is "more common", but it is certainly something that came grew from the same soil - ie people were thinking about what God was like based on scripture and Christian tradition.
The more common preconceived notion prevalent today that came about from 18th century thought is the idea of the clockmaker God: the one that created the world and then withdrew from it.
quote:Well I dispute that this idea has anything to do with Aristotle. But that logically doesn't work in terms of Engineers - clearly bridges did not fall down when Brunel died nor sewers collapse when Bazalgette checked out.
According to the above notion of scripture and tradition (Aquinas' via Aristotle most famously), if the engineer went away or died, the switch would go to off and nothing would exist at all.
quote:I can't think of any situation where an Engineer is also the power source for the thing he has produced.
How can the box of electronics continue to exist if it has no power source?
quote:Yes, that's the point. If you want to try and discuss the thermodynamics of God, you need to have a way to approach measuring His entropy. We don't have that.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As regards the second law of thermodynamics, I think Leorning Cniht's point is that the universe plus God can't be regarded as a closed system of the sort to which the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies. In order to do so, you'd have to be able to quantify the amount of entropy in God to state that there was an overall sum of entropy that could increase or couldn't decrease.
quote:Certainly.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Having thought about it a bit more, I can see that it is possible to imagine the deity as both the engineer with access to the top switch AND the electricity powering the unit in the photo.
But, in my view, that's only possible if one comes to the photo with this idea about the deity in mind.
You welsh? ) seems to have something of a handle of physics and potential options. quote:This seems a fairly self-centered and anthropomorphized view of the Universe. Something is "wrong" if it's inconvenient for humans (and presumably the stuff that humans like or find convenient is "right"). Defining "wrong" and "right" in terms of personal benefit seems morally dubious.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Re what's wrong with creation tho (earthquakes, ebola virus' etc), it is my understanding this is the result of the breaking of the original creation that God ordained. We are not only broken, but creation is too.
quote:Free to evolve!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How is a slug free? Free from - or to do - what?
quote:I saw the metaphor as a way of beginning the discussion, not as an excellent or complete metaphor.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... I think you need to get yourself a better metaphor.
quote:So how does God come into it? He starts everything off, and then goes for a rest?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Free to evolve!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How is a slug free? Free from - or to do - what?
If God chose to have a static, none evolving universe/world then - even sentient beings like us would have no choices, we'd be under his control.
As it is life has the opportunity to arise and evolve anywhere the conditions are right for it to happen.
(I used viruses and earthquakes as examples of things which do humans harm, even 'tho very necessary ~ not as any kind of description of evolutionary processes)
quote:God is the glue which keeps the whole cosmos in being.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:So how does God come into it? He starts everything off, and then goes for a rest?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Free to evolve!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How is a slug free? Free from - or to do - what?
If God chose to have a static, none evolving universe/world then - even sentient beings like us would have no choices, we'd be under his control.
As it is life has the opportunity to arise and evolve anywhere the conditions are right for it to happen.
(I used viruses and earthquakes as examples of things which do humans harm, even 'tho very necessary ~ not as any kind of description of evolutionary processes)
You must know the old atheist joke, why, it's almost as if he's not there at all.
quote:So God is the glue which keeps the whole cosmos (and presumably everything in it) in being, but at the same time all beings are free because they're able to evolve - presumably implying that God-the-glue isn't involved in the evolutionary process.
Originally posted by Boogie:
God is the glue which keeps the whole cosmos in being.
quote:If it could contradict any scientific ideas of how the universe is powered then it's a wrong idea of God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was wondering if this particular idea of God contradicted contemporary understandings of how the universe is powered.
quote:What would the creation be missing?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The key question seems to be, is creation finished, or not? If it is complete (the watch analogy) then the creator can indeed step back and let it run, at least for a while. If it is not complete then it must still be in process.
Which brings us back around to time and the physics of time.
quote:You can read anything you like into a blank canvas.
Originally posted by balaam:
No constraints do not mean guesswork.
Null is not necessarily void.
quote:No slug evolves, let alone is free to do so.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Free to evolve!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How is a slug free? Free from - or to do - what?
quote:I don't think God subtly promotes anything, I think she waits and loves.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:So God is the glue which keeps the whole cosmos (and presumably everything in it) in being, but at the same time all beings are free because they're able to evolve - presumably implying that God-the-glue isn't involved in the evolutionary process.
Originally posted by Boogie:
God is the glue which keeps the whole cosmos in being.
First, that seems contradictory.
Second, how would you know anyway? If God was involved in the random mutations that affect genes, was involved in the selection pressures that benefit some genes and not others, was somehow subtly gaining the system to promote his favoured genotypes.. we'd be none the wiser, would we?
quote:Of course, you are entitled to believe in anything you like, whether or not you can explain it to anyone else.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think God subtly promotes anything, I think she waits and loves.
But I don't 'know', it's all speculation ~ but no more so than anyone else's speculation. We are never any the wiser on how/why God works are we?
quote:Hence my question. I'm curious.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If it could contradict any scientific ideas of how the universe is powered then it's a wrong idea of God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was wondering if this particular idea of God contradicted contemporary understandings of how the universe is powered.
quote:Fair point. For Ed Feser does seem to imply the universe would cease to exist if God were to turn the power off.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But actually I think that shows up a problem with the analogy. The relationship between the universe and God is not much like the relationship between a machine and electricity. The machine doesn't go away if you turn the power off. It just stops running. God does not power the universe in the way that electricity powers a machine..
quote:Why must there be a division between the two? I simply see the natural world and its processes as a part of theology. But theology is the bigger science that encompasses the physical ones.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If there's anything of which it can be meaningfully said that it powers the universe (*) in that sense then it falls within the purview of science not of theology.
quote:They are exempt from the theory of evolution? Why?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:No slug evolves, let alone is free to do so.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Free to evolve!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How is a slug free? Free from - or to do - what?
quote:I can't speak for CB, but to my mind evolution is something which cannot be associated with freedom. Species evolve as the best fit individuals reproduce more readily than others- but as an individual evolution is nothing I can do anything about. I'm not "free" to choose whether to evolve in any sense any more than a slug is.
Originally posted by Evensong:
They are exempt from the theory of evolution? Why?
quote:I'm mighty confused by this train of thought. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, natural selection or the genes. Nothing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
On the other hand, who knows whether a slug has free will or not.
quote:We weren't talking about individuals, we were talking about God and how he interacts with his creation. I believe there would be no cosmos without him ~ he's the ultimate creator and sustainer.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I can't speak for CB, but to my mind evolution is something which cannot be associated with freedom. Species evolve as the best fit individuals reproduce more readily than others- but as an individual evolution is nothing I can do anything about. I'm not "free" to choose whether to evolve in any sense any more than a slug is.
Originally posted by Evensong:
They are exempt from the theory of evolution? Why?
quote:Hey!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Of course, you are entitled to believe in anything you like, whether or not you can explain it to anyone else.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think God subtly promotes anything, I think she waits and loves.
But I don't 'know', it's all speculation ~ but no more so than anyone else's speculation. We are never any the wiser on how/why God works are we?
But as to the idea that it is as good as anyone else's ideas - nope, wrong. An idiosyncratic idea which cannot be interrogated or discussed is not as good as one which can be.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
}quote:What Mr Cheesy said, but also, evolution (a) occurs between generations of individual organisms - i.e., not to an individual organism but to a species over time; (b) occurs at a genetic level independently of any "free" input from any individual organism.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:They are exempt from the theory of evolution? Why?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:No slug evolves, let alone is free to do so.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Free to evolve!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How is a slug free? Free from - or to do - what?
quote:It says to me that even if you flip the switch the other way, the light stays on.
Originally posted by Evensong:
What does this picture say to you?
Does it contradict contemporary understandings of the physical and biological sciences?
Yours in anticipation,
Evensong
quote:So I'm no expert, but I think that's precisely not what it shows. Epigenetics says that your genes aren't the whole story. Same genes, but different environmental history leads to different outcomes.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
mdijon - epigenetics is showing that genes are changed by the environment and those changes are inherited. The study that shows permanent changes to some genes following the Hunger Winter
quote:<tangent>
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is not surprising that we see long-term changes in people who were in utero during the Hunger Winter. It is more surprising that we see effects in their children.
quote:I'm getting confused too.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I'm mighty confused by this train of thought. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, natural selection or the genes. Nothing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
On the other hand, who knows whether a slug has free will or not.
Probably because of The Myth of Progress that evolutionary psychology seems to buy into.
quote:It's no myth. And it's got bugger all to do with epigenetics.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I'm getting confused too.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I'm mighty confused by this train of thought. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, natural selection or the genes. Nothing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
On the other hand, who knows whether a slug has free will or not.
quote:Yes it does.
Originally posted by Evensong:
We really are going on a tangent here but if you type in epigenetics and evolution you get plenty of interesting ideas about linkage.
See here and here.
Maybe our free will does affect how we live and therefore what we pass on to our descendents.
Seems to me it kind of changes the whole idea of natural selection and random mutation as being fixed environmental changes that have nothing to do with immediate lifestyle.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea. Unless of course you see the New Testament as a spiritual improvement on the Old Testament. But then again, that's an act of God ( sending Jesus into the world) and not a result of human personal spiritual improvement.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes it does.
Originally posted by Evensong:
We really are going on a tangent here but if you type in epigenetics and evolution you get plenty of interesting ideas about linkage.
See here and here.
Maybe our free will does affect how we live and therefore what we pass on to our descendents.
Seems to me it kind of changes the whole idea of natural selection and random mutation as being fixed environmental changes that have nothing to do with immediate lifestyle.
I love the idea. It suggests the possibility of long term spiritual improvement.
quote:I don't see why epigenetics effecting long term evolution is a long shot. It's a new factor in the theory ( theory remember - not a scientific LAW) that we have discovered that may change how we think about evolution.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
My head hurts. OK, so some environmental impacts on one generation might have effects in 2 or more generations.
That doesn't mean that it has an ongoing evolutionary effect on the species. It might, but it would be a long shot and still needs to give a competitive advantage compared to other changes in the genotype.
Still less does this have anything to do with freedom.
quote:How about long term spiritual decline?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
quote:Aye. Evolutionarily speaking, from the Big Bang, it has got and therefore will get ever more complex. With better possibilities. And realities. Forever. Of the increase of His government there will be no end. Individuals rise and fall as evanescent blips in the vast, ever improving story of Evolution. Which is what happens in this room, this womb. We're ALL going to be transcendentally reborn. One hundred billion human beings. Starting again. In the next matrix next door. Where it's been happening forever.
Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s by Myth of Progress I mean the idea that things get better over time: physically, emotionally and spiritually.
quote:FFS.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't see why epigenetics effecting long term evolution is a long shot. It's a new factor in the theory ( theory remember - not a scientific LAW) that we have discovered that may change how we think about evolution.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:
I think one of the fallacies of current evolutionary theory as most people understand it is this competitive advantage idea or "survival of the fittest".
In my understanding natural selection only selects for what is most able to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Not all environments.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:I'm sorry, who said it was "in a total world sense"?
So it's not about advantage in a total world sense, it's just an advantage in a particular setting sense.
quote:It is reasonable to suggest that any species is constantly developing traits which makes them more competitive in their habitat and/or which allows them to survive in a changing habitat.
So the idea that we get increasingly "better" or "stronger" over time is part of the myth of progress. Its not part of evolutionary theory.
quote:This is probably bullshit.
In terms of personal or individual freedom and lifestyle choices effecting epigenetics, this may or may not be an advantage in a particular setting but it may change the game for the natural selection in that setting.
quote:Nope, it makes no difference at all. The only way a trait - however it is inherited - would become dominant in a species would be where there were progeny that were better suited than all the others, reproduced more than other individuals and gradually took over.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Darwin conceived the theory of evolution in the absence of any knowledge about DNA. It was perfectly possible to formulate the theory talking about heritability without a specific mechanism. In theory there is no reason why his theory couldn't apply to other forms of heritable change aside from DNA. The current examples don't really suggest a major role for epigenetics in evolution (except perhaps in cancer cells), but if they did it doesn't seem to me to radically change the philosophy of the theory.
quote:And an impossible one to answer. I guess one could postulate that traits which led to "better morals" (ie generally calmer, less violent attitude to life etc) might be advantageous - but I generally don't believe this because bullies generally tend to do rather well in life, mostly because they steal everyone else's stuff.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How could we be improved as moral beings - be made lovingly kinder - biochemically? That's an open question.
quote:That's an interesting thought. As a result of this thread, I was pondering about humanity and whether the species can be said to be "beyond" evolution on the basis that we've managed to tap technology to expand far beyond our "natural" habitats.
Evolution is now operating in the collective consciousness that is culturally mediated social psychology. On the inadequate metaphor for signs - units of meaning? - that are memes. Surely? (To soften my declamatory style ...).
quote:I think philosophy and ethics is a totally separate sphere from biology. And I think in general it is a mistake to make bland and half-baked statements about moral improvement of the human species based on faulty understanding of the biology.
Do we not need a science of love? A logos ... to complement the ethos and pathos?
quote:I'm sure this is true.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Could it be that Secularism part of God's evolutionary plan?
quote:You know how it ends.
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
quote:While this is an inherently secularizing process, it does not preclude religious beliefs, especially ones that can be understood in a more rational way. It does, however, ruthlessly strip society of its traditional beliefs, as I'm sure we all observe.
In sociology, rationalisation or rationalization refers to the replacement of traditions, values, and emotions as motivators for behavior in society with rational, calculated ones. For example, the implementation of bureaucracies in government is a kind of rationalization, as is the construction of high-efficiency living spaces in architecture and urban planning.
quote:It is also hard to distinguish the things that change, along the lines of the establishment of the universality of rights, from the idea that we are getting better morally.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I think it is hard to show a moral progression. I don't believe that we are, really, getting better morally. Things are certainly changing all the time, and the moves towards the universality of rights is a good thing.
quote:I think that is the secret.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If there is any real evolutionary improvement in our morals, I'm guessing it wouldn't be seen for thousands of generations.
quote:I think it is a mistake to think that one culture is morally superior to another.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is also hard to distinguish the things that change, along the lines of the establishment of the universality of rights, from the idea that we are getting better morally.
People who have lived in cultures that are different from their own are almost always aware that, although people are essentially the same everywhere, there are often striking moral differences. Attitudes towards theft, sexual morality, hospitality, etc. are often so different that it is easy to believe that these are more than just local customs. They seem to be actual moral differences.
quote:Morals certainly vary, but the debate is about whether humanity as a whole is getting better. I don't think there is much evidence that it is.
So if morals can differ from culture to culture, why can't morals change across all of humanity?
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is a mistake to think that one culture is morally superior to another.
quote:Actually, I was thinking the other way around. People of European origin are widely criticized worldwide for their historic tendency to manipulate and disrespect other peoples.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is all well and good to think that we're morally superior because our sins are less "visible" than others, but ultimately I can't see that we're really much better, sadly. We've just removed ourselves from the results of our sinful choices.
quote:I agree. Not much evidence, other than things that can be explained by the increased rationalization of the planet. Once you have governments and laws that are enforced the murder rate tends to go down.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Morals certainly vary, but the debate is about whether humanity as a whole is getting better. I don't think there is much evidence that it is.
So if morals can differ from culture to culture, why can't morals change across all of humanity?
quote:Order and efficiency don't count for much to plebs.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yet at the same time an incredibly ordered and efficient society.
quote:Sounds plausible to me. You can push it further, that religions have often been antithetical to divine purpose, or whatever you call it.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Could it be that Secularism part of God's evolutionary plan? Secular people do appear to be quite good at loving each-other and exercising tolerance.
Crossing with the 'Has God failed' thread, it is possible that He sent Jesus to take away the sins of the World and now realises it hasn't worked all that well.
Just a thought.
quote:A very nice post. When I used to do Zen meditation more seriously, we would have these kinds of experiences, and found that we were able to talk about them in a common language, although coming from different religious backgrounds, and of course, none. Even the 'God' word would get mentioned! It can ruin your life, but then, (Zen koan coming up), what is the purpose of life right now?
Originally posted by rolyn:
Coming to OP pic which I ought to have commented on earlier.
It immediately struck as good representation. Simply because yesterday I was sat with my son, who is very into 'The Power of Now' mind control. We were at a lakeside and were looking at the water surface shimmering with the sun on the textured wavelets.
We were both in a temporary state of 'being'. Me turned on, (I presume by God), and my son with his mental technique. We both agreed that science, by a series of logical steps, could quite sufficiently explain the visual stimulation before us, but it could never be It....like that actual moment.
As if I'm trying to say that the God 'on' switch does what all those other dials do yet many many times more, and completely differently.
quote:Really. So what do you make of these verses? They all talk about maturing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
quote:I think Evensong is talking about the long-term spiritual improvement of humanity and those verses are talking about the spiritual maturity and growth of the individual.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Really. So what do you make of these verses? They all talk about maturing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
quote:I don't know about that. Paul talks about the Law as a guardian and tutor until we reach maturity. That certainly implies that the change between the old covenant and new includes some growth in humanity as well as a one-off act of God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea. Unless of course you see the New Testament as a spiritual improvement on the Old Testament. But then again, that's an act of God ( sending Jesus into the world) and not a result of human personal spiritual improvement.
quote:But then the governments go to war against each other so the net killing rate probably doesn't improve all that much.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Once you have governments and laws that are enforced the murder rate tends to go down.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It is also always worth pointing out that despite it's immense power, Rome was unable to stamp out a tiny sect which was drawing Power from elsewhere.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I don't think so. An ethics that isn't somehow grounded in human nature is not fit for purpose. It's no good making ethical systems for beings who are born autonomous adults who are entirely self-sufficient, and who are unaging unless killed by violence. It's no good making an ethical system for beings who are capable of pure disinterested reason, if as a matter of fact we aren't (or for beings who live entirely by emotion if as a matter of fact we are capable of disinterested reason).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think philosophy and ethics is a totally separate sphere from biology.
quote:I think you are overstating your case here. There was at least one systematic attempt to get rid of them (Domitian). It is true that for much of the time in the second and third centuries AD Christians were subject to only sporadic local persecution and could otherwise live day to day. But just because there's no systematic attempt to get rid of you doesn't mean that you're not being persecuted. Sporadic and local persecutions are still persecutions. And officials needn't be actively seeking to wipe you out to disadvantage you.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second, the Roman Empire didn't focus its might on destroying Christianity, this is a Christian myth. The anti-Chritian laws and persecution was more sporadic and local than systemic.
quote:The first Empire to adopt Christianity as its religion was Armenia, not Rome. Christianity was (until the Second Iraq War) widespread in the Middle East, beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire. Likewise in Axum (Ethiopia).
Third, and perhaps most important, Christianity didn't find its wings until the Roman Empire lent it legitimacy.
quote:If that is so, then I agree.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think Evensong is talking about the long-term spiritual improvement of humanity and those verses are talking about the spiritual maturity and growth of the individual.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Really. So what do you make of these verses? They all talk about maturing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
quote:Not according to Steven Pinker.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:But then the governments go to war against each other so the net killing rate probably doesn't improve all that much.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Once you have governments and laws that are enforced the murder rate tends to go down.
quote:He argues that violence has declined despite the murderous wars of the 20th century.
Pinker presents a large amount of data (and statistical analysis thereof) that, he argues, demonstrate that violence has been in decline over millennia and that the present is probably the most peaceful time in the history of the human species. The decline in violence, he argues, is enormous in magnitude, visible on both long and short time scales, and found in many domains, including military conflict, homicide, genocide, torture, criminal justice, and treatment of children, homosexuals, animals and racial and ethnic minorities. He stresses that "The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue."
quote:If I ever call myself, I just don't answer.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:If that is so, then I agree.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think Evensong is talking about the long-term spiritual improvement of humanity and those verses are talking about the spiritual maturity and growth of the individual.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Really. So what do you make of these verses? They all talk about maturing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
The myth of progress is one reason why I hesitate to call myself any more.
quote:I am fortunate enough to live in rural surroundings which are close to nature and idyllic , yet despite this there exists often a feeling that The Establishment, whatever that is, always wins. Therein does seem to lie a kind of inevitable resignation and something that could be described as gloom.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, my pagan friends keep telling me that our only hope today is a new animism. However, my latent gloom tells me that it's too late, and that nature lies bleeding, ravaged by an out of control Mammon, often aided and abetted by religion.
quote:I disagree that long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:If that is so, then I agree.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think Evensong is talking about the long-term spiritual improvement of humanity and those verses are talking about the spiritual maturity and growth of the individual.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Really. So what do you make of these verses? They all talk about maturing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
quote:In the New Testament (or New Covenant) Jesus refers repeatedly to this covenant:
Jeremiah 31: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
quote:His flesh and blood are the signs of this new covenant (Matthew 26:28, etc.), but the covenant itself is what Jeremiah predicted it would be. His law on our hearts.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
quote:Possibly, I make no claim to be an historian. I maintain that my position is still much closer to accurate than rolyn's.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are overstating your case here.
quote:Single source attribution by a (possibly) biased source, from what I understand. Even then only towards the end of his reign.
There was at least one systematic attempt to get rid of them (Domitian).
quote:Didn't say there was no persecution, just that it wasn't the FULL MIGHT OF THE EMPIRE v. the tiny helpless Christians.
But just because there's no systematic attempt to get rid of you doesn't mean that you're not being persecuted. Sporadic and local persecutions are still persecutions. And officials needn't be actively seeking to wipe you out to disadvantage you.
quote:Hmmm, if you look at the spread of Christianity in the first 300 years v. the next 300 years, it certainly looks to be using a more efficient for of transportation in the latter (post Constantine) time period. The spread, fist 300 years suspiciously mirrors the scope and influence of the Roman empire lending to the empire abetting, even if passively, in Christianities rise.
]The first Empire to adopt Christianity as its religion was Armenia, not Rome. Christianity was (until the Second Iraq War) widespread in the Middle East, beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire. Likewise in Axum (Ethiopia).
We have more sources for Christianity after Constantine than before Constantine, but there are other factors in play there beyond the scale of adoption. The idea that Constantine would have adopted a sect that had in no way found its wings is implausible.
quote:
Various theories attempt to explain how Christianity managed to spread so successfully prior to the Edict of Milan (313). Some Christians saw the success as simply the natural consequence of the truth of the religion and of the direct intervention of God. However, similar explanations are claimed for the spread of, for instance, Islam and Buddhism.
quote:Are these mutually exclusive? I would say that all three religions are an improvement over what they replaced. God's invisible intervention is really a very good explanation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
from my link just above:
quote:
Various theories attempt to explain how Christianity managed to spread so successfully prior to the Edict of Milan (313). Some Christians saw the success as simply the natural consequence of the truth of the religion and of the direct intervention of God. However, similar explanations are claimed for the spread of, for instance, Islam and Buddhism.
quote:
There was at least one systematic attempt to get rid of them (Domitian).
quote:I think most historians agree that there's reasonable evidence of persecution under Domitian, based on more than one source but actually not fantastic multiple sources and difficult to know the true extent.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Single source attribution by a (possibly) biased source, from what I understand. Even then only towards the end of his reign.
quote:I don't see why the two must be separated even if I can't currently see a correlation between the purpose of the theory of evolution and the purpose of life as seen by Christianity.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The whole issue of "spiritual and moral advancement" and "free will" belongs in the fields of theology and philosophy and should not be attempting to borrow ideas from biology.
quote:Thanks for your previous comments upthread re epigenetics etc. And for this comment. I recall you are a biologist ( or was it medical scientist?) so I appreciate your opinion.
Originally posted by mdijon:
In a materialist's universe that's pretty much definitional. I daresay Darwin's theory could be formulated for spiritual fitness but that would be a pretty niche interest.
quote:I meant to type Diocletian. Oops.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Single source attribution by a (possibly) biased source, from what I understand. Even then only towards the end of his reign.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There was at least one systematic attempt to get rid of them (Domitian).
quote:Armenia is definitely outside the scope of the Roman Empire.
quote:Hmmm, if you look at the spread of Christianity in the first 300 years v. the next 300 years, it certainly looks to be using a more efficient for of transportation in the latter (post Constantine) time period. The spread, fist 300 years suspiciously mirrors the scope and influence of the Roman empire lending to the empire abetting, even if passively, in Christianities rise.
The first Empire to adopt Christianity as its religion was Armenia, not Rome. Christianity was (until the Second Iraq War) widespread in the Middle East, beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire. Likewise in Axum (Ethiopia).
quote:I think very best an exaggeration. He did issue a general persecution, but it only lasted a few years. Nero's persecutions are disputed in their motivation and scope.
Originally posted by mdijon:
The earliest accounts of persecution were from Nero. The last persecutions under Diocletian are very well evidenced, nearly 300 years later following several other rounds of persecution and it is notable that he is often thought of as a wise emperor who restored peace and stability, but he also did his very best to destroy Christianity.
quote:More than a few years.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
but it only lasted a few years.
quote:Yes but.... it isn't that we humans are improving and building the kongdom on earth. More that we have to be open to allow God to work through us to that end.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I disagree that long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:If that is so, then I agree.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think Evensong is talking about the long-term spiritual improvement of humanity and those verses are talking about the spiritual maturity and growth of the individual.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Really. So what do you make of these verses? They all talk about maturing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
Jeremiah refers to a future "new covenant":
quote:In the New Testament (or New Covenant) Jesus refers repeatedly to this covenant:
Jeremiah 31: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
quote:His flesh and blood are the signs of this new covenant (Matthew 26:28, etc.), but the covenant itself is what Jeremiah predicted it would be. His law on our hearts.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
The impression is certainly given that this will happen miraculously and instantaneously at some time in the future. But this is simply how the Bible tends to speak about future events to make it clear that this is God's work.
It should be obvious from everything Jesus said, and everything that He commanded His disciples, that the point of spreading of the Gospel is the long term spiritual improvement of humanity.
quote:Yes, well put. That's what I meant to say.
Originally posted by leo:
Yes but.... it isn't that we humans are improving and building the kingdom on earth. More that we have to be open to allow God to work through us to that end.
quote:should be 'call myself socialist'
Originally posted by leo:
quote:If that is so, then I agree.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think Evensong is talking about the long-term spiritual improvement of humanity and those verses are talking about the spiritual maturity and growth of the individual.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Really. So what do you make of these verses? They all talk about maturing.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Long term spiritual improvement is not a biblical Christian idea.
The myth of progress is one reason why I hesitate to call myself any more.
