Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Evolution Doesn't Explain Life
Quick thought I had. People seem to talk as if evolution explains life, and especially to argue pro/con (mostly con) as if it did so. I wonder if [fundamentalist] religious folks would be more comfortable with evolution if someone were to stop and explain that Darwin meant his title quite literally, that "The Origin of Species" isn't about the origins of life, but, particularly, how speciation occurs once life is active. Maybe not, since religions with creation myths don't generally start with, "In the beginning, there was a stochastic biochemical process....", but one never knows. :-)
26 comments:
People fear what they do not understand fully, unless someone they trust tells them to believe in something else that saves them from that fear.
Provide ANY information that gives the perception of changing that belief and the fear changes to anger.
Fundamentalists will never get it, but eventually other religions will. Catholicism embraces it now, provided that you don't use evolution to prove that god doesn't exist...which unfortunately too many Hard Line Atheists (as bad as the religious fundamentalists) try to push.
Catholicism actually has been the denomination of choice for scientists for a long time... scriptural fundamentalism went out the window pretty quick.
Hard Line Atheists are just another kind of religious bigot, pushing an unprovable that they take on faith.
I hardly think that "pushing an unprovable that they take on faith" construes bigotry, Russ, or you have to throw out pretty much all the religions. That or go with your "faith >= mustard-seed" and show folks a miracle.
I used to shy away from atheism and referred to myself as an agnostic, but after some recent though, I've decided that atheism is highly misunderstood, and intend to write a post on that relatively soon (I do want to space it though, so I don't have to rename my blog "Infidel's Paradise").
Alex, the reason why people go ballistic at an atheist is that the atheistic perspective is a claim that directly contradicts the fundamental cultural assumptions of the [fundamentalist] theist -- speaking the position is itself a challenge to that person's whole culture, which places them in the position of either repudiating the atheistic thesis advanced, or else see their culture lose face. To the fundamentalist, an atheist is an "incompatible other", a "them" that can't be integrated, and with whom integration would be the equivalent to being kicked out of his tribe. This hits the psyche at our most primitive us/them level. Any atheist dumb enough to die on that hill deserves to do so.
Luckily, Christians (excluding fundamentalists, since, frankly, I've never met a fundamentalist (and I've met plenty) who practiced anything recognizable as Christianity) can easily accommodate an infidel or, worse, an apostate such as myself, on the grounds of compassion and unconditional love. If, as Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", "turn the other cheek" makes the whole world, uh, cheeky. Hmmm, have to work on my wording, but you see what I'm getting at.
Speaking as another agnostic who does get 'ballistic' at athiests, I suspect that my experience with athiests is pretty common.. Namely, that athiests tend to be extremely pushy and arrogant about their beliefs on a level comparable to fundamentalists.
A Christian, Deist, agnostic, athiest, whatever who takes the stance of 'hey this is just what I think' doesn't bother anyone.. Conversely, what are fucking obnoxious and rage-inducing are Fundamentalists and those athiests that I *ALWAYS* seem to run into.. In other words the "this is the truth of reality and if you don't believe it you're stupid".
EVERY freaking athiest I meet has that type of smug condescending attitude, looking down their nose at anyone who has 'faith', even as they ignore the fact that their own belief system is just that.. faith.
I wasn't going to post on this, namely because I find it more interesting in religion vs evolution discussions to sit back and listen, however...
...I went to another blogger's page (http://newtinski.blogspot.com/) and found that she had changed her banner. The new banner has the following quote, which I found very poignant in relation to this discussion, especially Superbiff's comments about overzealous atheists.
"People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost." H. Jackson Brown Jr.
Jim,
I do understand what you're getting at, but like you and the top 2 posts point out - when one is tolerant and not PUSHING their belief/ideology, typically everyone can get along and not feel threatened by the other person's beliefs. The majority of arguments we see and experience are by a vocal minority, not the majority, and so are a skewed sample upon which we unfortunately have to make decisions and observations with.
I think what really frightens most fundamentalists is that if they look at evolution, it seems plausible to them, but they are afraid that they will be "deselected" in the evolution of humanity and thought. As more and more people become tolerant and less fundamentalist, you could argue that indeed they are becoming less "fit" to survive which in turn causes them to becomes more insecure, afraid, and ready to defend their fitness to exist....and then they start breeding/creating more.
Evolution as a concept works in finance, biology, and the workings of society if applied right. To me its a proven theory and a tool by which to understand other things. However...I suspect someday I will encounter a thought process or idea that becomes very threatening to everything I think is right and have a very hard time coming to grips with it if it makes logical sense, and then I may slip into the defensive mode on that issue.
It works in history too. I just used Evolution as central point in a explanation on how military revolutions work (i.e. a method to measure over a long haul while deailing with much overlap, grey area and deadends). Basically, was the move from pikes to muskets a nice simple a to b to c, or was it more like evolution with missing links or messy overlaps and no clear "and at this point, everyone in Europe said "pikes suck, muskets rule". I go for the messy part. Same idea as above, it works but isn't very clean. And people don't like messes.
You're right. Reminds me of the aphorism (Menken?) "The plain and simple truth is rarely plain and never simple."
I should probably read "Guns, Germs & Steel" by Jared Diamond...but I think it would be preaching to the choir.
Mike, thanks for reminding me about technological evolution - lord knows I use it every day in the lab (try this - if it works is it sustainable, if not - a dead end and try something else).
That raises an interesting idea: self-replicating flame-retardant experiments. You could sit back and let the results come to you! :-)
Surprisingly enough....
Well, not in FR anyway, but this is the whole idea behind what is called "combinatorial chemistry" or "high-throughput experimentation". The idea is that you can use it to run thousands of experiments over hours rather than years and find "hits" worth pursuing. As you get more and more data, the input parameters get more refined for thousands and thousands more experiments until you find what you're looking for exactly.
Not that this is perfect though. The screening techniques and the ability to sort out false positives and false negatives continue to be an issue for this field of science, although several companies have made a significant profit off of this field alone.
I suppose one could set fires all over the place and see which ones burn themselves out...hey, survival of the most flame retardant, but I suspect that Arson is an evolutionary dead-end. And literally too.
I'm not an atheist, but I do think they're getting a bit of a bad rap. There's a difference here.
Hard-Line Religious individuals are generally not capable of leaving the rest of us alone. Ok, you get a Hard-Line atheist and, say, he's snarky, annoying, and you don't get to post the 10 Commandments. You get Hard-Line religious fundamentalist and you get sharia, clinic blockades, and a refusal to legalize an HPV vaccine.
I am now off to try to compose a creation myth that starts "In the beginning, there was a stochastic biochemical process". After I go look up "stochastic".
Okay that last bit was pretty damn funny.
Wow, this thread took off.
I agree. My experience is that both fundamentalists and atheists come in both "jerk" and "live and let live" varieties. The difference is that while fundies are more likely to describe themselves with a celebratory comment about their life in Christ, etc etc, atheists are likely to make their statement a blanket pejorative regarding religious people.
I have to agree with that observation. It seems that the athiests that I have met who were more the "jerk" variety had some kind of horrible experience that turned them away from the concept and practice of religion, whereas the fundamentalists that fit into the same category were "reborn" and thus felt compelled to "share" their new interest in the faith.
Russ, I think that's true. I also think there're social reasons for that as well that in many ways stem from the the fact that general atheism is a contrarian position, combined with the fact that many atheists are sick of people telling them they're inherently immoral, going to hell and why won't they just shape up and stop being enemies of the community. (Sadly, this is not hyperbole -- people will go (way)out of their way, upon discovering that you're an atheist, to denounce or convert you.) Combine that with the general human proclivity that C.S. Lewis so rightly derides, that "...any small coterie, bound together by some interest which other men dislike or ignore, tends to develop inside itself a hothouse mutual admiration, and towards the outer world, a great deal of pride and hatred which is entertained without shame because the 'Cause' is its sponsor and it is thought to be impersonal."
I mean, really, why should religion have a monopoly on hypocrisy?
Took me a few times to work this thought out, but here goes:
What if religion and atheism are indeed particular evolutionary paths?
Hear me out – it sounds hokey at first, and yet it makes sense to me.
I can’t remember the SciFi author (I think it was Arthur C. Clarke but I could be wrong) who commented in a book once that the greatest upheaval in human future society was the discovery of the “God gene” which was responsible for belief in religion. Those who had the gene believed in God/Religion; those who didn’t were atheists. It boiled down to a chemical reaction – not a free choice thought, and major cultural upheaval resulted from the discovery.
So if some people have a need for religion and others don’t, maybe this is an evolutionary change. Religion can provide many benefits, as well as harms, to its practitioner, but let’s assume that the belief in something provides a positive benefit to the fitness of that human; either as mental calmness/strength in the face of adversity or in the ability to raise children and propagate a species. If that trait can only be “properly” passed to the species through conversion and teaching – then one must “preach” to the unconverted, or that trait will die out. If one sees the advantage that religion brought to their own life, they may be all the more committed to sharing it with others in the light of “religion does good”.
Asbestos Flame Suit for me disclaimer: I am not saying that atheists don’t raise good children, nor am I saying that those who believe in something are better parents. However, finding religion may cause someone who would normally be a bad parent to become a good one…and vice versa.
So what role might Atheism have in the evolution of a species? Perhaps more and more people are finding alternate methods which provide the same benefits of religion (mental strength in face of adversity, inner peace, contentedness, etc.) but it is not a belief that allows such a benefit to be achieved. These new methods could be in response to a bad experience with religion (adaptation to environment) or maybe are a new trait that leads to fitness of species through self-control of the mind. Those who experience success with this are likely to share it with others who either think like they do, or like with the religious example above, will try to propagate their species by converting others since this is the only way it is known so far that it can be done for sure.
Double Asbestos Flame Suit for me disclaimer: I am not saying that those who believe in religion have weak minds or that those who don’t have stronger ones. But if you can achieve the mental strength in adversity (just one example I know) without prayer…doesn’t this suggest a ability not derived from religious belief?
So which of these (belief or absence of belief) is the superior? Probably neither. I think both have a role and they work differently for everyone. So in the absence of the discovery of a “god gene” I have to assume that both systems of thought play a role in human life. Neither is “bad” or “good” and both try to achieve the same goal, just via a different mechanism.
I'm not sure how exactly their relative superiorities would be defined: you could do anything from propensity to propagate to median happiness, and probably quite a few in between. The only thing I can say for certain is that people will respond in favor of what's in the mirror.
Funny -- I still think every person who calls him/her-self a Christian needs to read Nietzsche. Then he/she can put a Darwin sticker on his/her vehicle, a fish sticker sticker next to it, and then put little heart appliques around both.
:-)
Of course, I happen to believe because of too many personal and familial instances with transcendent reality -- but I could just be crazy. And, in fact, atheists would call me that since transcendent reality doesn't exist in their belief system.
I'm okay with that, as long as they don't hit me over the head with it.
You know, there's such a thing as a transcendent experience (I've had a few, including one real doozy); the thing is how they're interpreted. If you're coming from a hermeneutic that directly translates such an experience to be an experience of transcendental reality, there ya go.
Even the most avowed atheist, assuming he's not an idiot, could not seek to argue against such experiences or to say you're crazy for having had them. Regardless of what they signify, the experiences themselves are REAL. In so far as examples reduced to the absurd go, anyone who pays attention to their own vision (not its contents) will readily be able to see the noise in their own visual signals. The "static" that this noise is perceived as doesn't represent anything "real", but the noise-perceptions in one's vision are real nonetheless.
True -- but the experiences (especially familial) I'm talking about happen to be witnessed and experienced by a group. That's why "mass hysteria" or "group hypnotic suggestion" usually comes up to explain these phenomena.
You're correct about the hermeneutical lens, by the way.
But I've witnessed and participated in too many instances whereupon either the people and I were either hallucinating OR perhaps were experiencing something else beyond our material selves. What I'm talking about is the whole "Communion of Saints" in the Catholic world, the "ancestors in the Dreaming and the waking" in the aboriginal/animist world. For me, this isn't merely faith -- it's knowledge.
Well, and then there is two other people having my robot-army invasion dream. But for the record, I did NOT address the UN in Latin.
I'm unqualified to comment on either the Communion of Saints or any robot invasions, but I think one thing that's sufficiently fascinating as to be worth mentioning is that we're only just beginning to understand both the limits and the parameters of our minds. Regardless of whether the reference is my re-invention of Laplace transforms in the shower one morning (very embarrassing: for a split-second I thought I was a GENIUS) to my once taking Maddie's head off for an accusation of no more hostility than "hi there" (and those're just two of my examples, let alone the boob who thinks that Jesus spoke to him on the way to the Rite-Aid), it's very clear that our minds are not the rock-steady foundations we assume them to be.
Jim, I think dreams are a prime example of that very point. Suffice it to say that though I don't pretend to know anything about psychology or the innermost reaches of the human mind, I firmly believe (and have seen proof) that there are reasons for events such as dreams, ESP, deja vu etc. This is evident, imho, in the fact that you are hard-pressed to find anyone that hasn't had some kind of an episode, be it a dream that was eerily realistic to the more intense revelations that lizardqueen mentions.
I can't recall the source, but deja-vu has been explained as a synchronization-failure between the two halves of one's brain. Part of the reason why I don't tend to take this kind of thing as evidence isn't that these sorts of things happen (like I said, I've got a doozy), but that they're so often very different from each other. The LQs shared experiences are even more interesting from that perspective.
Post a Comment