Evolutionary Philosophy and Reasons for Existence

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;117195 wrote:

Would that it were so. There would be no need for all of this, then. But science, or some scientists, have declared war on everything spiritual.

Science is agnostic on matters of the supernatural - it only deals with what can be observed or derived from observations.

Individual scientists, like individual rat catchers or individual policemen, will have their own thoughts about the unknowable.

Some of them attribute the unknowable to a God, or gods, others deny the unknowable as relevent or even likely.

Just like everybody else - as is their right.

Scientific discoveries often strike people in general as being more credible than personal revelations.

However, they tend to lack the consoling aspects that religious descriptions tend to apparently offer people (I say apparently because I've yet to hear a religious description that I don't personally find disturbing, patronising or ridiculous, with the possible exception of some of Alan Moore's/Joseph Campbell's/Julian Cope's ideas - and they provide an opt out anyway as far as I can tell).

So for those who want the consolation of a spiritual purpose the temptation is to "see that" in science - I reckon.

But science doesn't provide that as far as I can see.

And if it's valid that theistic scientists should be allowed to say their faith goes hand in hand with their science then the same should be accepted of atheistic scientists.

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;117186 wrote:

I am taking the position, as I had said, in so many words, in that post, that one asks as question for results--an answer. If we ask 'how life evolved, and we want answers that we can be sure of, that we can demonstrate as being most thinkable due to reproducing actually results that everyone can see, to do so, we have to go the discipline of science. Philosophy and Religious belief-systems do not do that. It is specifically for that reason that the Philosophy and Mythology departments are always in different schools within the university system (for the most part...sometimes courses will overlap). It's like asking how the embryo develops after conception, against asking 'why' there is this thing called an embryo. (which may not be such a good analogy, but I hope gets the point across.

If, in hopes to make it clearer, we ask 'how life evolved, we are asking about the process which is this 'evolving.' Philosophy does not do that by and of itself these days, without going to science for data. Then, if we wish to ask 'why,' we can of course do so, and we can muse over all thinkable answers, using various degrees of data from the discipline of science, or, even, none at all--but there is no way to verify any answer to the question. We can go to the various religious belief-systems, and find different answers (about as many different answers as there are belief-systems), but then we're gonna have to test those for accuracy just as well--if we want a tool to use in our practical, day to day living as human beings amongst many life forms on the planet.

If, for some reason, an intuitive answer comes to question asked in science, it will be tested; thus in the end, you have a tested and demonstrated answer (if it holds up...if it fails, it is discarded as error). Regarding the point about a 'theological question,' it might be good to better explain how you want to use the word 'question' here--as an actual question, or as simple a concern. (for example, the Golden rule is a general Christian based concern, and it is something which science has answered towards [explained the details of what that is for], but it is not an actual question; where as, for example, 'why did YHWH want to kill all the rest of the Israelites for being complainers when he had already acknowledged that he knew they were a stiff necked people, is a theological question which can be answered by a tested empirical answer--namely, that the text is not a true story, so the writer can make any contradiction with reality they wish to. )

Questions, and inquiry will come from many areas, fields, and disciplines or sub-disciplines, that's true, but we cannot match just any answer to particular question with just any question of any choice . . . it simply does not work that way.

Neither philosophy nor the data bases of the various religious belief-systems would have, nor do, explain the eleven year sunspot cycle, nor the eco-life systems around ocean vents, nor the DNA similarities between the H. sapiens and the H. sapiens neanderthalensis, etc. etc.

My number three is a requirement for consistency, for which I am sure we can find any number of failures (such as those who searched for oil in the Holy Land based on a certain OT interpretation, and of course, failed, Scientology) where humans have, in the past couple of hundred years, tried to mix answer/inquiry fields. It just doesn't work.

basically I agree with what you are saying, perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post. ...reading your number 2 premise I was not aware that you were referring to a specific question...i was reading it as if you meant whenever we ask how anything works, occurs, etc.

---------- Post added 01-05-2010 at 07:41 PM ----------

from the OP:
"why is life on earth the way it is?"
"how did it get the way it is?"

whether one gives it the name of random selection, or natural selection, using the process of evolution to answer the question why or how in the above context seems to me a bit evasive. it fails to provide anything other than a historical report of a sequence of events.

even if the facts of the history of organisms on earth can be documented, I dont think that is the complete answer. perhaps the question is not phrased in such a way as to invite any other response. it might help to declare whether the question concerns the origin of life itself and its progression or human life only ...? or are we being asked why or how did the faculty of intelligence and reason, the capacity for art and music evolve in human beings?

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;117243 wrote:

from the OP:
"why is life on earth the way it is?"

"how did it get the way it is?"

whether one gives it the name of random selection, or natural selection, using the process of evolution to answer the question why or how in the above context seems to me a bit evasive. it fails to provide anything other than a historical report of a sequence of events.

Maybe the question "why is life on earth" is the sort of query that a scientific line of inquiry won't answer, but when you append "the way it is" evolution answers it quite comprehensively.

"The way it is" suggests that a historical account is being considered, or challenged - it seems to me.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I see, salima; thanks for that. Yes, actually a very specific question has been put forward by this thread, and it is one (as clarified by jeeprs #20) that is unanswerable--and of course, as I had hoped I made clear enough through my argument so far [but likely have failed to do so clearly enough--my bad] by saying that the question is unanswerable, I am saying that no answer can be substantiated by observation of demonstrations which show how that answer can be seen as valid by a neutral third party.

Thanks for your reply, jeeprs, I see a little, here and there, of what I reason may have been caused by misinformation, or misunderstanding, or naturally instilled (and pre-conscious) bias, somewhere along the line to where you have come today (as in this general time frame in your life). You have seemingly, at least as far as I can tell, not quite fully come to appreciate the scope of application of the scientific method process...or, again, so it seems to me. I'll try to see if I can surgically draw that out, later on...bed time now. (and...a religious belief-system is a religious belief-system, be it Buddhism, Christianity, Zeusism (? what would you call that anyway?), Shinto, or Aztecism (?) [sorry, I don't know, and have no time to look it up now]; every school of Buddhism, like every school of Judaism, is exactly a religious belief-system...that's the definition class...and Vedantic Hinduism, as well as Tibetian Buddhist tradition, is no less so simply because of their being philosophically expanded.)

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Humanity may be unique, for sure.

But do you know what else is unique? Pygmy marmosets are unique. Armadillos are unique. Kangaroos are unique. Hookworms are unique. Sea squirts are unique. Coral is unique. Slime molds are unique. Coccidioides immitis is unique. Tree ferns are unique. Algae are unique. Archaebacteria are unique.

I once reviewed a paper about an archaebacterium that metabolically reduces sulfides to sulfate. All, 100% of eukaryotes, including all animals, plants, fungi, chromists, and protozoa, along with most eubacteria, reduce oxygen to water as a terminal electron receptor for ATP generation. So this ancient organism was highly unique, different from nearly all other life.
Every species is unique in certain respects. And they've all come to the same point as us, namely 2010.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Hey Jeep,

Good opener, thanks; lemme jump in here with you all. You bring up a good point issue that touches many aspects of philosophy, one I'd like to expand on. I must confess to some measure of waning-patience here; I believe most humans tend to over simplify and place themselves (and their mental processes) at the center of all things and that these aspects create the dichotomy that you've asked about.

jeeprs;116851 wrote:

The question, which is really very simple, is... can we still ask why has life evolved in the way that it has? ...I think the mainstream answer is: for no particular reason.

Absolutely, but I think before we ask "why has it evolved", one would be well-served to first answer: Must there be a "why" at all? Look at any process (natural or unnatural) we think we understand and ask yourself "Why is this the way it is" and the likely answer would be something along the lines of: "Well <this> reacted with <that>, then so-and-so does <whatever> until <yada> became <x>" - in other words: there is no single reason why anything is just so - all things that are (in any observable state) came to that point as a result of a series of actions and reactions, causes and effects, the passage of time, the combination an interaction of elements, there is no single "why" - not for anything. Why would evolution be any different?[INDENT] It is telling, to see such a grand and complex process be relegated to words such as "pitiless" and "accident" (which implies something happening other than was intended). If I smack the que ball and it bumps the 8-ball into the side pocket, can we call this a "pitiless accident"? No, one is a product of the former's momentum - one item/element reacting with another. I know Jeep isn't necessarily advocating such a thing, but I see this a lot: The Two-Dimensional Mindset that says, "If I wasn't designed on purpose - with determination towards this condition and form - I must therefore be an accident" - what self-centered, self-aggrandizing bunk.
[/INDENT]Also, folks, I really don't believe that we are the "end product" of anything. Anyone who believes our bodies/our minds are the pinnacle of <any standard> needs to step down off that narcissistic podium; we're far from perfected. And I can't believe that any purposeful-design would include all the physical/biological and mental/emotional elements we call 'human nature'.

Can something have value without a grand design? Or is lack of such evidence of a "woopsie"? How limiting this view is. Yes, there may indeed have been a designer, there might have been a design, but we neither do nor can know this; and I personally don't see any reason to jump on such a "lookie-me" bandwagon.

For all thinking creatures, existence revolves around them; we're no different. It's forgivable that humans should often feel that such is the case, but since we're imbued with the capacity for reason I think it's so much the better that we use that reason to properly contextualize our existence.

Life has evolved here

Life needn't be either "by accident" or "by design" - can A Series of Events; one affecting the other, justifiably be called a "woopsie"?

There are purported to be hundreds of thousands of species that "weren't viable" - their evolutionary tree branches "got pruned" - We may yet get pruned

Acids, proteins, solar radiation, celestial impacts, planetary rotation, temperature variations, lunar-cycles and molecular interactions are just a small sampling of trillions of cause-and-effect vehicles in play here. Anyone think they know them all? Even better: Does anything think its reasonable to conclude that such a litany of factors can be reduced to a single "why"?

We've purposely bred dogs to see what comes of the offspring. We've bred vegetation and seen what horrible or grand results come forth - yet somehow we have a hard time imagining that these things happen without someone in a white coat purposefully intervening while a whispered documentary-style voice narrates. Let's review the definition of the word "silly"

A lack of any "how" does not support the "therefore something purposefully, and with intent, designed and caused it"-theory. A lack of knowledge supports one conclusion, and one conclusion alone: A lack of knowledge.

So yea, "why has life evolved in the way it has", I must conclude, is a good question to ponder. But the answer, although it is out there, would be a quadrillion-trillion volume library. I'd exhort those pondering such a thing to resist the urge to over-simply as well as the urge to self-stroke. Evolution - even with as little as we can say we know about it - has been a wonderfully complex, infinitely diverse system on Earth. Let's enjoy it, admire it, learn by and revel in it as we figure it out. It's not an "accident", its a fantastic process playing out before our eyes. The "why" isn't a pre-packaged energy drink one can slam down, it's a long term search; the product we're only beginning to grasp.

Thanks again

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;117166 wrote:

actually nobody knows what an actopus thinks or knows. can we be sure a cockroach has no knowledge that death will eventually overtake it? so i dont buy any of that as setting us apart from all the other organisms.

i dont deny the uniqueness of humanity (and of cockroaches and rats) it is the idea of superiority that i cant agree with, and i am not saying you had that in mind in your comment, but many people do.

there may be some reasons why humanity is separate from the rest of the picture, but i dont see any yet. i used to believe it was art, but i cant say for sure no animals have an artform that i simply cannot identify or appreciate. i was thinking maybe it is because we are the only species that uses other species as laborers...the only species that breeds other species... but maybe we arent, i have to study the animal world more.

To add to what aedes said, and to deal with one doubt you had............

In the animal world, we are unique as tool using animals. Tools could mean a space shuttle, a space station, a motor boat, a computer or a mobile phone. We are unique in using written language for education and communication. We are unique bipedalian mammals, to have scaled 8858 on terrestrial ground above sea level.

Other facts could be: We are unique to have destroyed our own species as was the case in both the world wars; as by inventing, developing and blasting atomic bombs over innocent human beings.
Our versatality is unique in a relative sense.

We are the only specie to have harmed the climate.

Now, as for the labour issue, a cuckoo nestling does make the crow or a starling labour until the cuckoo is able to fly on its own.

One specie do let other specie labour for their food or some work. But of course it will not b forced on the other. Its just that there are species who make use or take advantage of the other for various purposes.

For instance, the deer would eat all the fruits which are dropped by the monkeys. The fox and the hyeana are good at stealing from others labour,...and so on.

Commensal relationship, parasitism, are some form of mutual relationship we see in animal world.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

[QUOTE=jeeprs;117195]Would that it were so. There would be no need for all of this, then. But science, or some scientists, have declared war on everything spiritual..[/QUOTE]
Well it is science and the scientific method that is neutral on question of purpose or telos not scientists. Scientists are in the same existential lifeboat as the rest of us. Why am I here, what is my relationship to the world, what happens when I die, etc?. Scientists like the rest of us employ metaphysical assumptions and philosophical speculations to build a more comprehensive worldview than science alone can give. We are all metaphysicians; man is a meaning seeking, self aware, self reflective creature. It is in confusing science with the metaphysics of scientists that the error lies.

It is in the failure to separate their metaphysics from their science that some scientists engage in war with religion. The mechanistic determinism and materialism of classical mechanics is particularly prone to this. Modern physics is less prone to such problems. Modern Biologists have for some reason adopted mechanism and reductionism with a vengeance. One would think biology would be the least prone to such a metaphysical orientation.

Religion of course, has done itself no favors in consistently denying the facts of science and claiming supernatural revelation as the basis of ultimate knowledge. Man is not the crown of creation, the earth is not the center of the universe, the species were not created in their present form by supernatural means 6000 yrs ago or anytime close. God does not save some and forsake others and everything that happens is not part of some divine plan which is "the best of all possible worlds" or "its all for the best". The universe is some 14.5 billion years old, the earth is some 4.5 billion years old, life has been struggling for survival on our planet form some 3 billion years and has nearly been wiped out by natural catastrophe on more than one occasion. Man is a relatively late arrival on the scene (2 million yrs of hominids, maybe 200,000 yrs for homo sapiens and some 10,000 yrs of recorded history. The universe if it has a purpose would appear to have some purpose other than just the creation of man? When religion denies the facts of science or fails to take them into account in constructing a vision of the divine and how the divine acts in the world, conflict with science and scientists is inevitable.

The problem with science for theists is not science but mechanistic determinism and materialism as a metaphysical position..
The problem with religion for scientists is not the notion of ultimate purpose and mystery but supernaturalism and denial of the "truth" of scientific "knowledge".

One can abandon materialism and abandon supernaturalism and still see ultimate purpose, and meaning in the process of both cosmological and biological evolution. Religion was ultimately never about "how" it was about "why". Science was never about "why" purposes and meanings" it was about "how" sequences of events.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Hundred years ago a modern-day Mendel with too much free time let a couple of rare black squirrels loose a about 5 miles from where I live. The critters have multiplied since, and have displaced the grey squirrels completely to about a three mile radius. Now, I was wondering what Darwin would have concluded was the reason for this, and whether he would have thought that black squirrels are destined for uniqueness. The only environmental advantage I can see for black squirrels is that they're more visible, so they're less likely to get run over when they cross the road. What do you think?

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;117255 wrote:

every school of Buddhism, like every school of Judaism, is exactly a religious belief-system...that's the definition class...and Vedantic Hinduism, as well as Tibetian Buddhist tradition, is no less so simply because of their being philosophically expanded.

KJ, very important we clarify that in these schools of thought, there is something at work over and above belief. There is the fact of spiritual enlightenment. If you have not encountered it, then it is quite understandable that you consider it a 'belief system'. But it is not a belief system, I assure you. It is something completely different.

The whole nature of 'belief', and the whole nature of 'religion' for that matter, is historically very conditioned by the Western institutional religious systems, starting with the formation of Roman Catholicism at the time of the Emperor Constantine. The meaning of belief, the meaning of 'salvation', the nature of divinity, and so on, were all defined in a very particular way by the early Church Councils. The very ideas of the 'doctrine of atonment' and 'salvation by belieiving' were ensconsed in canon law at this time. And by and large this has defined religion for the West. Even Protestantism has been defined by it, to the extent that this is what Protestantism rebelled against. And to a very large extent, every time we use the word 'religion', this is the social and historical background we are referring to, consciously or not (usually not!)

Buddhism is very different - so different in fact that it might be a mistake to also think of it as 'a religion' (with the exception of 'temple buddhism' as ritually practised in Chinese-speaking countries, which is very much the same kind of thing.) The Buddha is not a saviour but a teacher, Nirvana is not granted by grace but attained by insight. There is a very specific program of understanding and attainment embodied in the early Buddhist scriptures. It is quite precise, repeatable and in important respects, thouroughly scientific, except that the subject of the science is the practitioner, not some external phenomenon.

Of course Buddhism has evolved and changed considerably since the early days, and Tibetan Buddhism incorporates a lot of magical and symbolic ideas and practises which are completely foreign to the 'Pali' variety still extant in Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Thailand. But even so, there is a great emphasis on practise, the path, and fruition, which is the getting of insight or wisdom, as being the only way that change comes about for the human.

The best way to get the flavour of the Buddhist teaching is to visit Access to Insight and spend a little time perusing the Pali 'suttas' (teachings). You will find again and again, that they are very firmly empirically grounded, going back all the time to action and result, cause and effect, this happens because that happens, and so on. To be sure, there is a strong element of faith in Buddhism - faith that the Buddha really enacted the program of transformation that he teaches, and faith that if the student enacts it, it will also work. But this is continually subject to trial and verification in experience. It is definitely not 'pie in the sky when you die'.

Vedanta is different again, but related in some ways to Buddhism. I might come back to that later.

Aedes;117264 wrote:

Humanity may be unique, for sure.

But do you know what else is unique? Pygmy marmosets are unique. Armadillos are unique. Kangaroos are unique. Hookworms are unique. Sea squirts are unique. Coral is unique. Slime molds are unique. Coccidioides immitis is unique. Tree ferns are unique. Algae are unique. Archaebacteria are unique.

As Jack said, and none of them are involved in creating civlizations, having philosophical debates, changing the climate of the earth or sending rockets to the moon.

As I have already said, I think this tendency to regard humanity as 'just another creature' is a denial of responsibility. It verges on delusional. Mankind is patently different to anything else in our world.Thought experiment: alien visitor to Earth, log entry: 'many species, one of them seems to have mastered language and tool-building. Oh, and information technology and space travel. Other than that, not much to report.' Duh!

Khethil;117272 wrote:

Good opener, thanks; lemme jump in here with you all. You bring up a good point issue that touches many aspects of philosophy, one I'd like to expand on. I must confess to some measure of waning-patience here; I believe most humans tend to over simplify and place themselves (and their mental processes) at the center of all things and that these aspects create the dichotomy that you've asked about.

Well, see above. For all the species that we at this very moment driving to extinction, all the habitats that we are in the middle of destroying, and all the traditional cultures that we are about to relegate to the museum, I think H Sapiens, of the Western variety, looms very large indeed.

Khethil;117272 wrote:

Must there be a "why" at all? Look at any process (natural or unnatural) we think we understand and ask yourself "Why is this the way it is" and the likely answer would be something along the lines of: "Well <this> reacted with <that>, then so-and-so does <whatever> until <yada> became <x>" - in other words: there is no single reason why anything is just so - all things that are (in any observable state) came to that point as a result of a series of actions and reactions, causes and effects, the passage of time, the combination an interaction of elements, there is no single "why" - not for anything. Why would evolution be any different?[INDENT] It is telling, to see such a grand and complex process be relegated to words such as "pitiless" and "accident" (which implies something happening other than was intended). If I smack the que ball and it bumps the 8-ball into the side pocket, can we call this a "pitiless accident"? No, one is a product of the former's momentum - one item/element reacting with another. I know Jeep isn't necessarily advocating such a thing, but I see this a lot: The Two-Dimensional Mindset that says, "If I wasn't designed on purpose - with determination towards this condition and form - I must therefore be an accident" - what self-centered, self-aggrandizing bunk.

That is what I started off asking: 'is there a why'? Many will say no. End of discussion; forward to Existentialism department....

For those willing to speculate....

The 'accident or design' argument is a very big cultural issue, of course. But as noted above, we come at it from a very specific legacy which has conditioned how we think of it.

I often read in threads here and other forums, that "religious people are arrogant/lazy/presumptious because they are willing to accept that 'God did it' ". As if the manner of God's creation is an easy thing to understand, and that if you think there might be an uber-intelligence, it is easy to work out what He is and what He does.

Standing in the shoes of a religious believer, it does not seem easy at all (except for those who are willing to settle for easy answers, and there is never any shortage.) I think modern theologians, fully apprised of the current scientific picture of the cosmos, as well as all the findings of 'revised scholarship' on the Bible, still have to think very carefully indeed about the symbolic meanings of religious teachings to try and appreciate what they hint at.

One such is Alister McGrath, who has done an interesting job of reconciling traditional theological understandings with current scientific cosmology. And he, like other traditionalists (and I am not talking about the ID movement or anything like that) has found the cosmic anthropic principle a very fertile ground for theological speculation.

It is too big an idea to summarise here. Have a look at this post which summarizes some of the points it makes.

But suffice it to say that the 'strong anthropic principle' - the idea that the Universe embodies very specific qualities right from the outset that make the formation of stars, planets, and life possible - is taken quite seriously by many scientists, philosophers and theologians. Read a gloss of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Wheeler. The implications are quite profound.

Khethil;117272 wrote:

[/INDENT]Also, folks, I really don't believe that we are the "end product" of anything. Anyone who believes our bodies/our minds are the pinnacle of <any standard> needs to step down off that narcissistic podium; we're far from perfected. And I can't believe that any purposeful-design would include all the physical/biological and mental/emotional elements we call 'human nature'.

Refer to notes on Buddhism, above. The Buddha, the Awakened One, is understood to be 'the perfected human' - having conquered precisely those 'elements' you have in mind. And the view looks completely different from there (so I understand).

There is such a subject as 'spiritual anthroplogy' - this is the understanding of the human's place in the grand scheme, in the 'great chain of being'. In the spiritual anthropology of Buddhism, humans are above animals, but below various types of beings in other realms (which in earlier times we would regard as angels, demi-gods and the like). But, uniquely, humans alone are able to understand the Buddha's teaching and attain Nirvana. Even the beings in the heaven realms are not able to do that. This is why the Buddha, though human, is 'teacher of Gods and men'.

Khethil;117272 wrote:

For all thinking creatures, existence revolves around them

And what might they be?

I believe there were possibly as many as 20 species of early hominid. Tried and failed to get it together as 'upright intelligent primate'. Many fell by the wayside, but nature kept trying, and here we are.

I will come out with something which I know will be generally very controversial, and most may not be willing to consider it. Now I am not trying to win an argument here. This is a very idiosyncratic viewpoint. But for me, it is a satisfying perspective, because it does make sense out of...well...everything, really. It is my religious outlook. I am not out to make converts to it, but to share something which I have been meditating on since youth.

I think something that has been driving the evolutionary process - there may be other things as well - is that in some deep way, nature wishes to know itself. The process of evolution is nature coming to consciousness. And that is where I think H Sapiens fits into the Big Picture.

I think the potentiality for consciousness was born with the Universe itself. This is pretty well attested by the anthropic principle. In this way, the emergence of intelligent life was anticipated at the very instant of creation.

So in one sense, we are not at all 'made by God'; we are simply the inevitable result of specific principles and laws that are deeply embedded in the fabric of the Cosmos. (However, in this view, the theistic understanding is definitely supportable, if that is how one wishes to see it.)

The mistake of Western man is to believe that only the movement of mass is governed by laws, and everything is reducible and subordinate to those laws. This ignorance is why Western man is acting unlawfully, in the eyes of the traditional civilizations, and why his activities are threatening life on earth. (It also happens to be why some radical Islamists are trying to destroy Western civilization. But that is definitely another thread.)

This is not taught to us by 'religion' as it is currently understood. Once you see this perspective, it provides ways of interpreting religion; but it might be best just to think about it as a new idea. It is probably less likely to muddy the waters.

Thanks.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;117436 wrote:

none of them are involved in creating civlizations, having philosophical debates, changing the climate of the earth or sending rockets to the moon...

And we cannot create sugar from sunlight, we cannot fly without a machine, and we cannot hibernate.

jeeprs;117436 wrote:

Thought experiment: alien visitor to Earth, log entry: 'many species, one of them seems to have mastered language and tool-building. Oh, and information technology and space travel. Other than that, not much to report.' Duh!

You have an incredibly concrete interpretation of my argument. You're a very bright human, Jeeprs, one whom I've grown to respect very much -- you can apprehend what I'm saying at a higher level than you are. But the problem is you're making a philosophical mess of teleology, of evolution, of existentialism, and of inventiveness. Separate these things out from one another, otherwise it sounds like you're giving a sermon and not having an organized debate.

jeeprs;117436 wrote:

As I have already said, I think this tendency to regard humanity as 'just another creature' is a denial of responsibility. It verges on delusional.

Oh please! What's delusional is the self-deification and hubris that I'm reading here.

I think we're just another creature, and I'll go head to head with you or anyone else about responsibility. Self-worship is not how people act responsibly. Recognition of the value of others, especially those who lack our capabilities (whether human or not), is what makes someone responsible.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Well, thanks, Aedes, but we will have to agree to differ on this point. Of course, all creatures should be treated with respect (to which end I have relinquished meat). But I will always regard 'anthropos' as in a category of his own. It is not self-worship. It is recognising the responsibility that comes with power and the fact of being 'the rational animal'.

And I will cop to the charge of 'sermonising' in this thread. I think I am probably guilty of that. I will also try and argue the point, as well, about the idea of 'purpose' and teleology. There is much more that needs to be talked through in that regards.

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 03:08 PM ----------

From the Wikipedia article on Anthropos (honestly I didn't know this when I used the term but check out the last phrase...spooky....)

Quote:

Gnosticism
The Primeval Man (Protanthropos, Adam) occupies a prominent place in several Gnostic systems. According to Irenaeus [17] the Aeon [18] there is a blessed and incorruptible and endless light in the power of Bythos Valentinustou proontos anthropou). In the Valentinian syzygies and in the MarcosianPistis Sophia the Aeon Jeu is called the First Man, he is the overseer of the Light, messenger of the First Precept, and constitutes the forces of the Heimarmene. In the Books of Jeu this "great Man" is the King of the Light-treasure, he is enthroned above all things and is the goal of all souls.

I personally only know a smattering of this mythology but it sounds truly fascinating....

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I personally believe that the humans require a sense of purpose to thrive in this world. I meet a lot of people in my job who are going through the worst, most frightening, most stressful time in their lives. And it's incredibly variable the things that help people pull through it.

I say this because it is a fact that you and I should both agree on that some people believe that their purpose is intrinsic to existence (be it truly religious, or be it more like your sense of natural teleology) -- but others find purpose within and don't have any need for a purpose to existence.

Hell, isn't this one of the cardinal explanations for why disaffected boys become revolutionaries, gang members, and terrorists? Because it's in groups that they find purpose. This is why alcoholics have better outcomes in AA, a program where they share purpose with one another and specifically yield it to a higher power.

So let me ask you to reflect a bit on what you know versus what your heart tells you. I believe without a shred of doubt in my mind that your heart isn't satisfied with purpose being innate only to the individual; your heart needs it to permeate all of existence. But do you know that to be true? How do you tell if you're looking at existence or if you're looking at yourself reflecting off of it?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

It is a very individual matter.

I think the models for an existential understanding of meaning are Viktor Frankl and Erich Fromm. For someone who feels a need to explore questions of meaning and value totally unencumbered by religiosity, you can't go past them in my book.

For me personally, I have learned about myself that I have a kind of natural inclination towards spiritual teachings. That is why I have always been drawn to the 'mythic east'. But it is a kind of non-religious spirituality. The Buddha, when you get to understand where he is coming from, is not really 'religious' in the way the word is often used. His attitude is not like traditional piety, or anything like that. It is very pragmatic. But at the same time, it changes your attitude, when you engage with it. You learn to keep the precepts and live an ethical life, because you know the consequences. But again, that is different to just 'believing'.

For me, this kind of understanding has become essential to my existence. It makes me feel a kinship with everything and everyone. It is not an intellectual thing, it comes from the heart - as you say. People generally interpret that metaphorically, but it is real. Spiritual teachings have to operate on the heart level, otherwise they are not working. And if they do operate on the heart level nothing bad will ever come from them. The Yogis talk about 'the awakening of the heart chakra'. Again this is not metaphorical. I felt it happen, in 1980. It wasn't as if all my problems came to an end (I wish) but something changed on that day. This is the inner meaning of the idea of conversion. There have been other such experiences since, and after all life just goes on. But one is changed by it.

The whole process of spiritual awakening is waking up to your unity with the universe. Then there is no real separation between self and other, which is the same as realising, there is no self. That is why it is called 'yoga'. Yoga means 'union' (not just bending and stretching!) That is what all the books say, and it is true. But a person has to be ready to hear it, and meet a teacher who embodies it. I was lucky to do that, but as the saying goes, 'when the student is ready...' (although at the time, I didn't realise what had happened.)

If anyone is interested, these are the core booksthat have provided the basis for my outlook on life.

(I really have to log out of philosophy forum for a day, work is piling up and I need to get nose to grindstone.)

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;117553 wrote:

For me personally, I have learned about myself that I have a kind of natural inclination towards spiritual teachings.

It makes me feel a kinship with everything and everyone. It is not an intellectual thing, it comes from the heart - as you say.

I feel the exact same way as you about all of this, including eastern religious ideas and spirituality. I also feel this kind of kinship -- it's visceral.

So why do you think it is that your teleological mentality and my anti-teleological mentality has resulted in two people, you and me, who are 1) authentic, 2) responsible, 3) empathetic, 4) spiritual?

Could it be that this outlook is not at all related to these inclinations?

Isn't it more likely that we retrospectively rationalize our gut inclinations onto our philosophical outlook, whatever it is?

2 Replies

@Aedes,

[QUOTE=jeeprs;117436] I think something that has been driving the evolutionary process - there may be other things as well - is that in some deep way, nature wishes to know itself. The process of evolution is nature coming to consciousness. And that is where I think H Sapiens fits into the Big Picture. [/QUOTE] I like you do not think that the universe is the accidental result of blind indifferent forces. I reject the supernatural theism of medieval scholastic and ancient religion but still feel there is ultimate purpose and meaning. The universe is ordered and rationally intelligible, mathematically representational. The universe has given rise to order, complexity, life, mind and experience. These things are not the result of blind indifference in my view. I, like you, think man is part of nature; not the purpose of creation; but man is unique (in the degree or extent of; not in any ontologic sense) in his rational and self reflective abilities. I think the entire universe is perceptive in a primitive sense but I am a pan experientialist. Man is unique in the degree; not the kind of his abilities. Experience is a fundamental property of reality and goes all the way down.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;117436] I think the potentiality for consciousness was born with the Universe itself. This is pretty well attested by the anthropic principle. In this way, the emergence of intelligent life was anticipated at the very instant of creation. [/QUOTE] The universe itself is in some manner perceptive, alive and enchanted. All things "real" have a subjective or interiority mental aspect as well as objective external properties. This is not dualism but neutral monism in which reality is dipolar and the mental and the material are inseparable aspects (much like the wave and particle properties of photons can be observed separately but are really two inseparable aspects) of the same fundamental monist reality.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;117436] So in one sense, we are not at all 'made by God'; we are simply the inevitable result of specific principles and laws that are deeply embedded in the fabric of the Cosmos. (However, in this view, the theistic understanding is definitely supportable, if that is how one wishes to see it.) [/QUOTE] I can make a few suggestions for you but each person really develops their own faith based on their individual experiences, tendencies and innate predispositions. I see the universe as evolving as having an innate tendency towards order, complexity, life, mind, and experience. This is not irrational but it is not science either. Try to view everything as a "manifestation of the divine" or an "emanation of spirit". God in these views is not some detached superhuman supernatural humanoid but the inner spiritual essence of reality. The ultimate value is novelty and creativity. The ultimate reality is "becoming" process evolution; not "being" the objective material aspect of reality. God in some way relates to the world analogical to the way your mind relates to your body. God takes in the experience of the world and offers up new possibilities in a persuasive not coercive context. God is in process and evolves in much the same way the universe evolves and changes. God is dipolar with a primordial (eternal realm of values and possibilities) and a consequent (taking in the experience of the world) nature. There is a beauty, an elegance, a simplicity, a symmetry to nature and to natures god.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;117436] The mistake of Western man is to believe that only the movement of mass is governed by laws, and everything is reducible and subordinate to those laws. This ignorance is why Western man is acting unlawfully, in the eyes of the traditional civilizations, and why his activities are threatening life on earth. (It also happens to be why some radical Islamists are trying to destroy Western civilization. But that is definitely another thread.) [/QUOTE] We have used our science and technology to disrupt the natural order of things. There is (in my view) wisdom and value (a telos) in the natural order of things which we only now are beginning to acknowledge and realize. The notion that reason and science will tame and control nature and create perfect societies is human hubris at its worst. Each and every part of nature has a purpose and a value. We cause major disruption in the web of life, the chain of being at our own peril. Religion by claiming man as the purpose and crown of creation and claiming the universe was created for man to have dominion and for our use has contributed negatively to our appreciation for the wisdom of nature. More modern theologies (in some sense perhaps more ancient too) in which god is seen as immanent in nature and the world (as opposed to a god that is transcendent: separate and beyond the world) is more ecology and nature friendly. Immanence: the divine that dwells within; within nature not beyond and separate from nature. The immanent god acts through nature and natural process not by supernatural means.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;117436] This is not taught to us by 'religion' as it is currently understood. Once you see this perspective, it provides ways of interpreting religion; but it might be best just to think about it as a new idea. It is probably less likely to muddy the waters. Thanks. [/QUOTE] I do not know about sacred scripture and revealed religion they seem more like man seeking god or man seeking meaning not god communicating to man. I am very skeptical of revealed religion and supernatural theism. If there is a god, then nature is god's creation (theistic evolution) and we learn more about god from studying nature than from studying scripture. I fall more into the naturalistic theology or natures god and rational theology camp. In theological terms I am a pan-en-theist.

[QUOTE=Aedes;117461]I think we're just another creature, and I'll go head to head with you or anyone else about responsibility. Self-worship is not how people act responsibly. Recognition of the value of others, especially those who lack our capabilities (whether human or not), is what makes someone responsible.[/QUOTE] All things in nature have value. The universe is engaged in a ceaseless process of creative advance in which ultimate purpose is precisely creation of value. If there is a god, he should be the chief example of the metaphysics of nature not its sole exception.

Now the question asked in the OP is not about science except in the most peripheral way. The views I present are not scientific. All worldviews contain elements that are essentially metaphysical assumptions or philosophical speculations. My theistic views are full of such speculations. How do you see the world? Everyone has a complex worldview full of such assumptions and speculations. This is just my particular take on things, not for everyone, perhaps not for anyone but me.

0 Replies

@jenygs09,

Jeeprs, I think you're hinging ciriticism,in a way, on the inconsistency displayed by those espousing "no purpose" and their own actions.
We "know" that our world is made of meaningless matter, but we act as though thigs matter , don't we !

Dawkins seems to disregard all logic when he campaigns for this or that. If there is no purpose to Life, then it really does not matter. Even homocide is just a biological fact of life, not something inherently bad.
Of course, he could argue that he is compelled by his biology, to care. Sorta bad for the "selfish organism" routine. The killing is good for his spiel, but the biological response by us is nt so good for his spiel.
He is so proud to personally disregard , though, any biological compulsion vis a vis belief in religion.

He makes no effort at all moderate his actions to match his philosophical stance, which would be to not care, as there is no purpose to any of it, even to extending human existence on the planet.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

i agree with a lot of what has been posted on this thread, but as far as the subject of intent or purpose, whether on the behalf of a god or the cosmos as a whole, i am still undecided. but that's ok...

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;117568 wrote:

Isn't it more likely that we retrospectively rationalize our gut inclinations onto our philosophical outlook, whatever it is?

Quite likely, in fact. You are more from a science perspective, I am an arts & humanities graduate - but we also have much common ground, as you have observed. But I do come out swinging in regards, not to science, but 'the scientific worldview' - how scientists think the world must be. I find most of your critiques of what I say are not a defence of that worldview, but actually more methodological and philosophical. Fair call, and I will do my best to take on whatever criticisms I believe are warranted and respond accordingly. But there are some areas where I am sure we will continue to differ, mainly because I am consciously trying to distance myself from some aspects of modernity. I am looking at it from a point somewhere slightly outside it. Counter-cultural, you could say.

But all that aside, I much appreciate the acknowledgement and feedback, thanks.

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 06:35 PM ----------

salima;117602 wrote:

i agree with a lot of what has been posted on this thread, but as far as the subject of intent or purpose, whether on the behalf of a god or the cosmos as a whole, i am still undecided. but that's ok...

Well of course! That is one of the things that is so great about the whole situation. If it the solution was obvious, it wouldn't have any value.

0 Replies

@salima,

bluemist;117407 wrote:

Hundred years ago a modern-day Mendel with too much free time let a couple of rare black squirrels loose a about 5 miles from where I live. The critters have multiplied since, and have displaced the grey squirrels completely to about a three mile radius. Now, I was wondering what Darwin would have concluded was the reason for this, and whether he would have thought that black squirrels are destined for uniqueness. The only environmental advantage I can see for black squirrels is that they're more visible, so they're less likely to get run over when they cross the road. What do you think?

This is a good example for showing how nature works.
Since the proclivity to see things or reasons as seen from human perspective - i.e an anthropic view, leads us to deduce or induce a cause, which may be in fact an erronoeus intellectual reasoning or an observation in truth or in reality. It only leads us to show our limitation.

A scientific observation can also be erroneous for the same reason.

Colour, although a very important factor in specietion, inter specie relationship and competition, survivalibility, propagation of seeds, etc, is not but everything for a specie to have geographical dominance or out survive other competitors.

A black squirrel may have survived more or out numbered or out casted others because of being less visible to other predators in the night, if only colour has to be taken as a factor. Other factors like its agility, smartness, strength, adaptation techniques on one hand, and on the other factors such as diseases or illness, better nutritional value or huntability ?(meaning prone to be shot or killed more by local hunters or boys) of the grey squirrels are some of the possible reasons why you see more of black squirrels than the original natives. It is a matter of indepth study.

Being run-over for being less visible cannot be the ONLY reason.

unless we study nature 24/7 x 365 x long n years, i am afraid we will continue to deceive ourselves. Even by scientific methods this is impractical. Therefore all scientific theories as such must be open-ended, preferably. If close -ended, than Nature will oneday surprise us by its mysterious ways.

I took this diversion into natural history, and scientific observation becuase, i think it is important to know that science although using rational, empirical, methodical, universal, experimentable ways for theorising and proving has et to overcome some human limitation.

If this is agreed upon, than it won't be far difficult to understand that inductive propositions or intuitive reasonings, or philosophical understandings, or spiritual experiences, or mystical awakenings are not going to help the human cause of answering the whys and hows of nature.

jeeprs;117436 wrote:

As Jack said, and none of them are involved in creating civlizations, having philosophical debates, changing the climate of the earth or sending rockets to the moon.

As I have already said, I think this tendency to regard humanity as 'just another creature' is a denial of responsibility. It verges on delusional. Mankind is patently different to anything else in our world.Thought experiment: alien visitor to Earth, log entry: 'many species, one of them seems to have mastered language and tool-building. Oh, and information technology and space travel. Other than that, not much to report.' Duh!

Well, jeepr, while no one would disagree with the first sentence above, your lament in the second sentence is quite understandable. But to generalise that people, lets say like the sceintific community, harps on a denial and trivialise humanity as 'just another creature' is a bit of a stretch.

Your point is well taken, however.

Now, your original question was posted and Your earlier quote was :

Quote:

As I said, I am asking - why? Actually what I set out to ask was, 'can you ask why life evolved as it did? Is it actually a question?' But I have already decided, it is a question. But I don't think it is a scientific question, certainly not as science is currently conceived, anyway. I think this is a difference, very broadly speaking, between the philosophical and the scientific attitude to the question. Science starts from the obviously irrefutable fact that we and everything around us is alive. It can see the 'what' and theorise as to 'how' it arose and evolved. It appears to do that very well (with some major caveats to which I will return.)

The 'why' question is considerably more speculative. Why us? I think there is an answer to that question, but my answer may not be yours. In any case, it is a very big question. It is not something of which I have a proscriptive view - for example, as an evangelical Christian might. But mine is a spiritual answer nonetheless.

And your reasonings are articulated below:

jeeprs;117436 wrote:

For all the species that we at this very moment driving to extinction, all the habitats that we are in the middle of destroying, and all the traditional cultures that we are about to relegate to the museum, I think H Sapiens, of the Western variety, looms very large indeed.
.............
I think something that has been driving the evolutionary process - there may be other things as well - is that in some deep way, nature wishes to know itself. The process of evolution is nature coming to consciousness. And that is where I think H Sapiens fits into the Big Picture.
...............
I think the potentiality for consciousness was born with the Universe itself. This is pretty well attested by the anthropic principle. In this way, the emergence of intelligent life was anticipated at the very instant of creation.

So in one sense, we are not at all 'made by God'; we are simply the inevitable result of specific principles and laws that are deeply embedded in the fabric of the Cosmos. (However, in this view, the theistic understanding is definitely supportable, if that is how one wishes to see it.)

The mistake of Western man is to believe that only the movement of mass is governed by laws, and everything is reducible and subordinate to those laws. This ignorance is why Western man is acting unlawfully, in the eyes of the traditional civilizations, and why his activities are threatening life on earth. (It also happens to be why some radical Islamists are trying to destroy Western civilization. But that is definitely another thread.)

This is not taught to us by 'religion' as it is currently understood. Once you see this perspective, it provides ways of interpreting religion; but it might be best just to think about it as a new idea. It is probably less likely to muddy the waters.

Thanks.

Why us? you ask........ As you acknowldge is in the speculative realm. You have very strong views on that, and much of it is philosophised by your Buddhistic inclinations.

What i discern, here is that you have an emotional disenchantment with the Western Philosophy. And this 'consciousness' is growing for reasons which i wish not to go into now. Suffice to say, that if one feels disoriented or dettached from a philosophy, than possibly, agian, just possibly, it may be a good reason to look for reasonings against those values you start disliking.

In such a mental position, it is possible that you may adduce or conjure reasons for justifying for positions as against the other positions from which you want to get away. Therfore, your reasonings have become unscientific, and metaphysical. It is metaphysical because of your speculation on Nature and consciouness,
Examples are: (the phrases/sentences are picked from the quote above for context)

nature wishes to know itself;
mine is a spiritual answer;
The process of evolution is nature coming to consciousness
I think H Sapiens fits into the Big Picture
I think the potentiality for consciousness was born with the Universe itself.
the emergence of intelligent life was anticipated at the very instant of creation.
we are simply the inevitable result of specific principles and laws that are deeply embedded in the fabric of the Cosmos.

How can one debate this even if one wishes to. This appears to me a typical wordings of a Prophet. Prophezing is fine, it is against the tide, but far from deductible and detectable truths. Religion evolved out of such prophecy's, and speculative reasonings.
Why us? cannot be answered for all practical reasons. It is no more diffrent than asking on my death, why me?....that is if i find myslef in hell.
If my wife dies,, i would ask why her? Whats a straight answer to that.

Why, therefore is a fundamental supposition or enquiry for which there are yet no answers. Of course it is a psychological mystery.

0 Replies

Evolutionary Philosophy and Reasons for Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know