Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Caesar, Jan 18, 2013.
care to elaborate?
I like to think the problem we have is we seperate them and one day we will discover they work together....
i guess im more talking about God, and not religion....
so i guess youre right, religion kind of doesnt allow for the theory of evolution...
pretty sure buddhism does though.
I don't raise an issue with assenting to both. Though if I could add a rule of thumb, it would be that one should not inform the other. They're meant to be separate issues. Those who assert one over the other as though they are incompatible are just as guilty of trying to reconcile the two, just in this case they have failed.
Natural selection has shaped the machinery of the brain to deal solely with the challenge of survival.
Thoughts/symbols/abstract ideas and the larger cultures and systems of morality that spring forth from them are an extension of material reality and tools for survival and adapting to the unique pressures of our environment.
Ideas of god, causation, etc are just products of the brain's narrow focus on the survival of the organism.
tldr versions: our brains are limited as fuck in aim and scope and not designed for dealing with things like understanding the origins of the universe.
I think I conceded this when I lost faith in God, not when I bought into a scientific theory. I'm not meaning to put credit into the hands of religion and out of the hands of science by saying this. It's just how it happened for me.
but following this logic we also shouldn't be able to develop working scientific models like the theory of evolution.
i'm not necessarily saying i think we have the capacity to understand everything in the universe. i would agree that the origins of existence are probably beyond our reach. but i'm not sure how this makes evolution and the existence of a god incompatible.
however, i do think the idea that a loving creator (as we commonly understand god) would subject its creations to such a cut throat and brutal process of development is hard to believe.
i imagine if the universe is designed the creator either does not share in our uniquely human morality and aversion to suffering or it is conducting some kind of merciless experiment.
Not sure if this is a legit Albert Einstein quote, but it's been attributed to him on the web: "Science is a refinement of everyday thinking."
I found the quote because it said more simply what I was thinking.
What you're saying is valid, but I personally just took what I felt was the spirit of what Dex was saying. We seem to have interpreted him differently.
While the sciences are a very human development, I think we have to understand them also as a tool that helps us refine our regular (and often intuitive) faculties.
i agree with you. maybe i didn't make my point clear enough.
the faculties which science 'refines' were presumably shaped by the struggle for survival. these faculties weren't shaped specifically to help us map the galaxy or determine the elements of distant stars, and if we didn't have the ability to do so then this would seem a far fetched mission for an evolved brain to accomplish.
so it seems arbitrary to say that by definition an evolved brain can't access god if such a god exists. this is only true if god leaves no trace of himself that can be analyzed by the same refined faculties that we use to travel to the other places we're not meant to go.
Or possibility # 3 is its exactly how the bible says it
or possibility # 4 is THE MATRIX
OK yeah I just wasn't really connecting his arguments with the premise by that point since it was a few posts down, I actually agree 100% with what you're saying. And I really don't think a belief in God and the theory of evolution are incompatible, I just don't think one should inform the other, they're meant to be separate IMO.
i think i mostly agree with his sentiments - the idea that we can probe existence for answers to the highest questions is no doubt presumptuous. i'm probably nitpicking but i think it's important to recognize that it is essentially an open ended question as to which topics are actually beyond our reach.
tbh, i'm not really sure where i stand on this.
i think as a practical matter it's best to keep them separate (science and religion) in keeping with the traditions developed in the enlightenment to protect science from religious dogma.
but technically speaking they both make claims which can potentially contradict one another, so i dunno. on this basis one could actually inform the other, but only if you accept that one methodology is more reliable than the other.
One thing people have to have in mind is that the theory of evolution is closer to our reality than the belief in religion.
If you believe in evolution, I would assume you believe that the brain has been shaped overtime to best deal with the issue of survival. Meeting the challenges of the environment, mating, communicating, maximizing happiness, etc.
Believing this, wouldn’t it follow that our ideas of god would be tainted by this evolutionary tunnel vision?
What is god? Something that can give structure, purpose, enforce group cohesion, etc. Like fire, the wheel, the bow and arrow - it’s a thing of utility. It’s a multifaceted tool that satisfies very human needs.
How can anybody remain open to ideas of god knowing they are just the products of a very limited brain that has evolved to deal with very immediate challenges?
All species on earth evolve, so do nature, the universe and our consciousness, otherwise there is no point in anything.
but clearly if you believe that we can tap into questions like evolution then we aren't limited by our brains to merely meeting those challenges. so it would seem the inevitable conclusion is that the faculties which were seemingly shaped by evolutionary pressures to enhance our ability at completing some ancient task can now be utilized to perform other, much more impressive tasks.
we do have to wonder about questions we don't have the answers to and can't currently conceive of having the answers to. it could be that we can never know because like you said we're just too limited. but we can't assume that's true because the line between the knowable and unknowable has been steadily shifting since... forever.
is experiencing ecstasy the only important thing to experience
personally i'd say no, but keep in mind part of what i consider "important to experience" is shaped by the need to be prepared for the world we live in.
i thought that it must have something to do w choice. i realized that when we're in states of ecstasy, we really cant make choices per se. these states are so intense that we just lock into them and there really is no way to exit by choice.
i realized that the only thing that ever prevents you from ratcheting upwardly to these extremely intense states are the arbitrarily cruel whims of reality. we pathologize things like tragedy but its really tragedy that rescues us from this jail of never ending ecstasy.
einstein said that the universe was rigidly deterministic and so he thought that the universe had already planned every tiny ping and pang that ever happens in it in advance. this would mean that no one ever really has choice. i think in a way the existence of tragedy may create a kind of pseudo choice. that is its only by being exposed to tragedy that you are given this kind of illusory experience of choice. and that in universes w/o tragedy we are always thus choice-less ie there isnt anything to choose from since in these universes we always max out undisturbed to states of extremely intense ecstasy, and stay there that way forever
Separate names with a comma.