Evolution

[tellner]

It is the largely discredited evolutionary model of Lamarckism, which has not been a significant part of evolutionary theory since the end of the 19th century. It has received something of a resurgence in recent years due to the new field of epigenetics, but that is a whole other can of worms unto itself.

Biological evolution is Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian if you want to get picky). Cultural evolution is definitely Lamarckian.

 

[heretic888]

Biological evolution is Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian if you want to get picky). Cultural evolution is definitely Lamarckian.

A good point, but I don't believe anyone was talking about cultural evolution.

Although --- and, again, this is just more quibbling on my part --- I would argue both types of evolution are in large part a product of post-Darwinian self-organization processes.

Hehehe.

 

[thardey]

Not to belabor the point, but macro-evolution is pretty well established, too. Everything from genetic analysis to the fossil record to experimental studies involving E Coli support macro-evolutionary models.

Where can I find a good source of information on that, that would be appropriate for a layperson? All I can really get a hold of is either crappy biology textbooks that don't let me see what proofs are out there for macro-evolution.

Ok. I'll give it a shot.



If this is what you were taught in high school, then your teachers are to blame for an inadequate understanding of biology.

The conventional neo-Darwinian model or synthetic model (called so because it integrates, or synthesizes, the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin with the genetic discoveries of Gregor Mendel) of evolution does not work the way your high school explanation dictates. To put it in a nutshell, this model argues for random variation and natural selection.

In essence, neo-Darwinian evolution postulates that within any given generation of a population there is a natural random variation of traits, features, and talents within that population and, furthermore, this variance is due to the randomness of genetic inheritance. Among this variety of traits within the population generation, some traits will be better suited to allow the individuals that possess them to survive or thrive within the population's environmental niche. Those that are better suited to survive are more likely to reproduce and, therefore, become more commonplace among future generations of the population. Eventually, assuming relatively stable niche conditions, the traits best suited to survival will replace other less suitable traits.

The idea you have put forward, that individual organisms "adapt" to specific environmental needs and these individual "adaptations" are then inherited by their offspring is not Darwinism. It is the largely discredited evolutionary model of Lamarckism, which has not been a significant part of evolutionary theory since the end of the 19th century. It has received something of a resurgence in recent years due to the new field of epigenetics, but that is a whole other can of worms unto itself.

Yeah, that's the stuff I always challenged my high school teachers about, but they wrote it off, since I must just be a "stubborn creationist" or something. I remember seeing something about Lamarckism once, but I understood that to be slightly different - the only example I saw (remember - crappy text books) was illustrating how the theory was that if one of the parents had specifically-developed muscles due to extra exercise, then the kids would have a genetic predisposition to being stronger in those same muscles. It's sort of the same, but a little different.

When I really lost faith in "adaptation" was when I read the introduction to plant biology. It told a story where the sea plants didn't have enough room to be high enough to get sunlight, but still be below the low tide.

So it described how these plants "after several generations of attempts", finally was able to adapt to life on land, and so plant life began out of the sea.

And this was in advanced Biology as a Senior in High School! I asked the teacher how the plants knew how to adapt, since the first plants to try moving out of the Ocean obviously didn't survive to bring back a report on the mutations needed. I don't remember his answer, but I do remember being unimpressed by it.

Okay, this is vaguely reminiscent of the neo-Darwinian model, but it definitely confuses a lot of the information up.

For one thing, there is a natural random variation of genetically heritable traits among any given population --- one need not appeal to "deformities" or "mutations" to explain them, although these do commonly occur. The traits that are better suited for survival (natural selection) or reproduction (sexual selection) in the population's niche will naturally become more pervasive among future generations of the population, assuming the niche has not changed to any significant degree.

Perhaps "deformities" was too strong a word, but all I've ever been taught was "mutations", either helpful or not. I've understood "variations" to be within the "normal" hereditary traits, passed on by the dominant or recessive genes. That is, they weren't enough of a change to be permanently different.

Also, as a minor quibble, "survival of the fittest" does not directly come from biological Darwinism. It comes from the failed sociological school of Social Darwinism, which is also its own can of worms.

Jeez, I wish you had been around for the last discussion I had about this, after I finally got the "True Believer Evolutionist" off of the idea of "adaptation", and got him to realize it wasn't scientific, he fell back on "survival of the fittest", and stuck there like glue.

Another minor point. Anyone who uses language like "just a theory" should really brush up on their scientific terminology. A theory is actually quite a big deal in science.

My apologies - I don't know the scientific term for something that is more than a hypothesis, but less than a theory.

Of course, now that you've seen what I've been taught so far, can you really blame me for not buying it? My choices have been either "adaptation" or "natural selection".

And people say that evolution is taught in public schools!

Of course you don't even want to hear how the "Big Bang" is taught. I couldn't buy that, either, until I actually learned what 4-dimensional space was, and that it could expand. And believe it or not, I first learned that from a creationist's book!

Unfortunately, this is just Special Pleading. There is no indication the authors of Genesis meant anything other than 7 solar days in their prose.

Perhaps it could be Special Pleading, but I'm not arguing the point, am I?

At least the first three days couldn't have been solar days, according to the prose. However, they could have been 72 hours, depending on where the clock is sitting. But why 6 days total? Well, as you say, that's a whole other can of worms.

Jewish adaptations of Babylonian and Mesopotamian mythological figures.

:angel:

 

[thardey]

thardey, I don't have time to do a complete discussion of your post. But two things stand out. First, you talk about the "survival of the fittest" model. That is a red flag right there. It almost always betokens serious ignorance of the subject.

See my answer to heretic's post about this above. I was actually taught "survival of the fittest" by evolutionists, not creationists.

Second, the whole "microevolution is fine, but there is some undefined macroevolutionary limit that we don't have any evidence of passing" shows again either ignorance or outright dishonesty. It comes straight from the creationists and their pre-literate, pre-scientific myths about divinely ordained "kinds".

The evidence is there. It's been there for decades. We can show how thecodonts became dinosaurs and how tyrannosaurs became birds. One of the most common creationist natterings is "what use is half an eye?" Science can demonstrate pretty much the entire history from light-sensitive molecules to the best eyes in the animal kingdom - octopuses and some birds. We have a darned good set of models with predictive power for how life survived the Oxygen Revolution and why it has made such a kludge of cellular respiration.

All I've been able to find are proofs of the existence of fossils. I'll buy those. What I am looking for is examples of how the theory of macro-evolution is shown to interpret those fossils correctly, other than appealing simply to micro-evolution over time.

It's not the dating of, or the existence of the fossils that I'm questioning, its the proper interpretation of those fossils, particulary with the "evolution by jerks" shown by Stephen Jay Gould, or the "Cambrian Explosions".


The reason I differentiate between micro- and macro-evolution is not dishonesty, although it may be ignorance, or it may be my personal test-for-truth coming into play (but that's getting into philosophy, and we've got enough going on here.) But simply put, we've seen micro-evolution in our lifetimes. I'll admit my ignorance in that all I've been able to find about the process of macro-evolution is a very poor model of micro-evolution over several generations. I've never seen anything about what point something becomes a new species because of micro-evolution.

But my point is that I'm as well, or more educated, about evolution as the general public, and that I don't buy the type of evolution that the general public believes.

It's not that I'm anti-evolution, I just don't buy the "evolution-lite" that's public knowledge.

I mean, you look up "adaptation" in a dictionary, and you get:

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] ad·ap·ta·tion [/SIZE][/FONT] (

d

p-t

sh

n) [SIZE=-2] KEY [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1] NOUN: [/SIZE]

1. 1. The act or process of adapting.
   2. The state of being adapted.
2. 1. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
   2. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
3. Biology An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

#3 sounds a lot like evolution, no?

Science takes the world as it is and tries to find out what and why.

Perhaps a minor point, but no. Science tries to find out what and how. Why is the realm of classical science, when facts were interpreted primarily through the eyes of philosophy or theology. Once you ask "why", you are beyond the scope of modern science.

Religious zealots assume their conclusions, ignore any evidence that doesn't support them desperately hate anyone who isn't in lock step with them. Their view of the world is fundamentally and radically incompatible with science every step of the way.

I would agree with every word, except the limitation of "religious". Zealots of any sort fit the profile above.

And they are the only, I repeat only, faction which is unhappy with teaching evolutionary biology. They are also against physics, astronomy, geology, anthropology, linguistics, most of psychology and anything else which might challenge the models they've built in their heads.

Well, people are either religious, or they aren't. Not to create an either/or type of logical fallacy, but what other factions did you leave?

But I agree, I left the college I was studying because of a big fight over how to study/interpret history, linguistics, psychology, and geology, specifically. But at least there was a fight - which means somebody was arguing for that stuff. It's too bad he lost.


But I would classify myself as a "Religious Zealot" I mean, I'm defending Genesis on a public forum entitled "Evolution". I really don't know how much more of a zealot I could be. But I'm open to the list of stuff you mentioned above. Granted, I may be an exception, but I didn't set out to be that way.

It helped a lot when I realized that scientists aren't on some kind of a conspiracy to eliminate religion, but are pursuing facts. Then I didn't feel threatened, and, lo and behold! I actually started learning useful stuff!

There's just so much propaganda about this that it's going to be a long time before each side could ever let their guard down and actually listen to each other.

But, at the heart of it, if I'm stretching my spiritual beliefs to match what I'm seeing in physical life, is that such a bad thing?

 

[heretic888]

Where can I find a good source of information on that, that would be appropriate for a layperson? All I can really get a hold of is either crappy biology textbooks that don't let me see what proofs are out there for macro-evolution.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Yeah, that's the stuff I always challenged my high school teachers about, but they wrote it off, since I must just be a "stubborn creationist" or something. I remember seeing something about Lamarckism once, but I understood that to be slightly different - the only example I saw (remember - crappy text books) was illustrating how the theory was that if one of the parents had specifically-developed muscles due to extra exercise, then the kids would have a genetic predisposition to being stronger in those same muscles. It's sort of the same, but a little different.

Biological Lamarckism posits that the acquired traits an individual develops (such as the musculature example you gave) are inherited by one's offspring and therefore become a part of a population's phylogeny.

When I really lost faith in "adaptation" was when I read the introduction to plant biology. It told a story where the sea plants didn't have enough room to be high enough to get sunlight, but still be below the low tide.

So it described how these plants "after several generations of attempts", finally was able to adapt to life on land, and so plant life began out of the sea.

And this was in advanced Biology as a Senior in High School! I asked the teacher how the plants knew how to adapt, since the first plants to try moving out of the Ocean obviously didn't survive to bring back a report on the mutations needed. I don't remember his answer, but I do remember being unimpressed by it.

Well, the proper Darwinian explanation would be that members of this sea plant population with the traits adaptive to their niche (whatever these may be in this case) survived more often (or, at the very least, long enough to reproduce) and, eventually, all the members of the population came to possess this trait (or set of traits). Even if only one member of the population initially possessed this trait(s), that member would be more likely to survive long enough to reproduce than members with other traits and, with each progressive generation, the number of members of the population that possessed the adaptive trait(s) would exponentially increase.

Perhaps "deformities" was too strong a word, but all I've ever been taught was "mutations", either helpful or not. I've understood "variations" to be within the "normal" hereditary traits, passed on by the dominant or recessive genes. That is, they weren't enough of a change to be permanently different.

Heritable mutations with a survival benefit in the population's niche would become more common with each new generation. Heritable mutations with less survival benefit than the "normal" variance of genetic traits would die out.

Jeez, I wish you had been around for the last discussion I had about this, after I finally got the "True Believer Evolutionist" off of the idea of "adaptation", and got him to realize it wasn't scientific, he fell back on "survival of the fittest", and stuck there like glue.

It sounds like whoever you were speaking with didn't know what he was talking about.

My apologies - I don't know the scientific term for something that is more than a hypothesis, but less than a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable explanation. A theory is a conceptual paradigm that seeks to explain a number of observed hypotheses.

One of the common mistakes made is that a theory is some sort of "super-hypothesis".

Of course, now that you've seen what I've been taught so far, can you really blame me for not buying it? My choices have been either "adaptation" or "natural selection".

And people say that evolution is taught in public schools!

Well, all I can attest to is my own experiences. In that regard, I was exposed to evolutionary theory in my senior year of high school (but not before then) but it was not until college that I actually came to understand the finer points of Darwinism and what it actually entails.

Actually, I'd say American public school science coursework is woefully anemic and does not at all prepare students for college. The whole creationism angle just makes this situation even worse.

Perhaps it could be Special Pleading, but I'm not arguing the point, am I?

At least the first three days couldn't have been solar days, according to the prose. However, they could have been 72 hours, depending on where the clock is sitting. But why 6 days total? Well, as you say, that's a whole other can of worms.

My point is nobody in history (except for perhaps mystics like Meister Eckhart) made the argument that the "days" in Genesis were anything other than literal 24 hour intervals until it became known that the world was, in fact, far older than six thousand years. Once this knowledge became known, believers began to come up with ways to "reinvent" their understanding of the prose.

This is similar to how some types constantly "reinterpret" the prophecies in Revelation in light of new world events. This is eisegesis.

 

[tellner]

That's the problem with using religion to guide science or science to justify religion. The first leads to bad science. The second leads to bad religion.

If you make revealed religious dogma the basis for your science or a standard by which research is judged you aren't doing science any more. At best you are shooting the arrows and drawing the circles around them. At worst you've betrayed the most fundamental tenets of science - the radical honesty which demands that you sacrifice your favorite theory without hesitation if it isn't supported by the evidence.

If you use science to justify religion as in books like "A Woman by God's Design", "Of Pandas and People" or "The Tao of Physics" you quickly come up against a distasteful dilemma. Science will move on and the "proof" that the latest and greatest science dovetails with the Eternal Wisdom becomes quaint. At that point you either have to abandon the religious doctrine (oops) or furiously wave your hands and backfill. "When we said seven days we didn't like really mean seven days." Oops again.

I find it best to leave religion to religion and science to science.

 

[KempoGuy06]

You people a frickin awsome. I didnt expect this big of a response. Ive learned a lot here (far more than I wanted to, im even researching some of the things I have read on top of my school work). I started this thread out of curiosity of what people believe.

My next one is another topic of debate

B

 

[thardey]

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Thank you very much, I look forward to researching that.

Well, the proper Darwinian explanation would be that members of this sea plant population with the traits adaptive to their niche (whatever these may be in this case) survived more often (or, at the very least, long enough to reproduce) and, eventually, all the members of the population came to possess this trait (or set of traits). Even if only one member of the population initially possessed this trait(s), that member would be more likely to survive long enough to reproduce than members with other traits and, with each progressive generation, the number of members of the population that possessed the adaptive trait(s) would exponentially increase.

Yeah, that's not the answer he gave. But how would you apply your answer to the question of transitioning from the sea to land?

Heritable mutations with a survival benefit in the population's niche would become more common with each new generation. Heritable mutations with less survival benefit than the "normal" variance of genetic traits would die out.

What's difference between that and "survival of the fittest?"

It sounds like whoever you were speaking with didn't know what he was talking about.

Unfortunately, it seems that he is a fair representative of the Evolutionist-True-Believer". That is, just like the Creationist-True-Believer he can't abide any sort of criticism to his cherished beliefs, even if those criticisms are valid, and have already been rejected by the people he claims to follow.

From my experience, it is these True-Believers that make the most noise, on both sides, so that most of what gets thrown about in the public arena is crap. All it serves to do is to separate the groups of True Believers, and it convinces everybody else that the "other side" is completely made up of irrational zealots.

People who don't understand Evolution are trying to convert people who have been emotionally programed to resist. And it turns into a shoving match, instead of a rational exchange of ideas. People who don't understand Christianity are trying to "prove God" so that people are forced to accept his rule (and who better to explain his "rules" that the church of the prosthelitizer?)

And, of course, the worst part of this is that once somebody is identified with a particular "side", everybody assumes that they are going to put forth the same old argument that's been thrown out before, so they quit listening to what's actually being said. A legitimate question from me is seen as a challenge, it's answered with an argument I think I've heard before, I stop listening, and try to remember that really slick defense I heard used once against the argument I think he's making, etc.

And people don't understand why I don't hold out a lot of hope for our race.
:toilclaw:

A hypothesis is a testable explanation. A theory is a conceptual paradigm that seeks to explain a number of observed hypotheses.

One of the common mistakes made is that a theory is some sort of "super-hypothesis".

Indeed a mistake I had made. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, all I can attest to is my own experiences. In that regard, I was exposed to evolutionary theory in my senior year of high school (but not before then) but it was not until college that I actually came to understand the finer points of Darwinism and what it actually entails.

Actually, I'd say American public school science coursework is woefully anemic and does not at all prepare students for college. The whole creationism angle just makes this situation even worse.

I was home-schooled for most of my elementary and middle school years, where I learned the "Straw Man's" Evolution. Unfortunately, when I transitioned to public school, the evolutionists themselves continued to present the same Straw man's theories, or what I referred to above as "Evolution Lite." While many of my classmates accepted the "adaptation" crap, simply because the teacher said so, I was trained to think critically about it, and to question it. Until yesterday, I had never heard anybody other than creationists be critical of adaptation, let alone "survival of the fittest," and I've been in a fair number of these discussions.

Then to hear it twice in one day gives me hope that I made the right decision to take Evolutionists off the "other guy" list in my life.

My point is nobody in history (except for perhaps mystics like Meister Eckhart) made the argument that the "days" in Genesis were anything other than literal 24 hour intervals until it became known that the world was, in fact, far older than six thousand years. Once this knowledge became known, believers began to come up with ways to "reinvent" their understanding of the prose.

This is similar to how some types constantly "reinterpret" the prophecies in Revelation in light of new world events. This is eisegesis.

There was also a guy named Mamonides and his followers, but I understand your point.

But then again, there was no need to re-interpret Genesis, until something came up to challenge it. There's a lot about the Bible that I interpreted wrong throughout my life, many of the parables, and teachings, as well as the "science", because I was coming at it from the wrong perspective. If I change my perspective, the plain reading of the text changes dramatically.

This particular perspective actually answers a lot of other questions about Genesis that I had put aside for the moment, like, who were the Nephilim? Who did Cain marry? Why does the verse talk about "Replenishing the earth?"

I keep shifting my perspective until I find one that answers more questions, but never want to stop and decide "I've found it! this is the answer!"

But that's my personal method of trying to live life, so within that, re-interpreting the days doesn't really bother me. But I could understand why it would bother others.

 

[thardey]

That's the problem with using religion to guide science or science to justify religion. The first leads to bad science. The second leads to bad religion.

I agree, if you're trying to justify or prove one by the other, you get into a world of hurt. Indeed a wise warning.

Like I said before, personally I'm not trying to prove one by the other, I'm trying to lay them next to each other, and see how close they harmonize. So far, every time I've done that, I've found a basic misunderstanding, or wrong teaching on my part, that I've been delighted to change.

If you make revealed religious dogma the basis for your science or a standard by which research is judged you aren't doing science any more. At best you are shooting the arrows and drawing the circles around them. At worst you've betrayed the most fundamental tenets of science - the radical honesty which demands that you sacrifice your favorite theory without hesitation if it isn't supported by the evidence.

Spiritual Beliefs require you to do otherwise? If it's wisdom to re-interpret science in light of new evidence, why would it be foolish to re-interpret religion in the same situation?

If you use science to justify religion as in books like "A Woman by God's Design", "Of Pandas and People" or "The Tao of Physics" you quickly come up against a distasteful dilemma. Science will move on and the "proof" that the latest and greatest science dovetails with the Eternal Wisdom becomes quaint. At that point you either have to abandon the religious doctrine (oops) or furiously wave your hands and backfill. "When we said seven days we didn't like really mean seven days." Oops again.

So, saying "oops" in science in noble -- I get rather excited when I get to say "oops" in religion, because that means I'm learning something!

I find it best to leave religion to religion and science to science.

I find it's best to leave Pure science to science, but I live in more of a "applied sciences" world (Civil Engineering, actually). You don't have that luxury.

As for "religion" (I actually don't like that term), Pure religion is the realm of theology and philosophy (theoretically, that is -- actually it becomes a function of tradition and security). "Applied Religion", if I can use the term, is going to overlap with other pursuits, and affect the way I live.

 

[Ray]

My point is nobody in history (except for perhaps mystics like Meister Eckhart) made the argument that the "days" in Genesis were anything other than literal 24 hour intervals until it became known that the world was, in fact, far older than six thousand years. Once this knowledge became known, believers began to come up with ways to "reinvent" their understanding of the prose.

Yes believers had to reinvent their understanding; except for some people who lived in the first few centuries after Christ (like the "Church Fathers"):
"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6). {Underlining was added by me}

This is similar to how some types constantly "reinterpret" the prophecies in Revelation in light of new world events. This is eisegesis.

Yup, like Adam and Eve weren't created, they evolved from simple organisms that hitched a ride on a meteorite to the earth. Kind of like "it's turtles all the way down!" or "where did God come from?" or "what was before the big bang?" Before the meteorites it was certain gases being turned into simple amino acids, proteins and so forth (by electrical storms/lightening) that Adam & Eve evolved from. Next thing, you'll tell me that gravity isn't merely an attraction between masses (similar to magnetism), you'll tell me that the fabric of space is warped by mass...

In any case, evolution probably took place and may continue but I can't hang around long enough to watch it. Any scriptural reference to creation is like asking a contractor to explain how he built a house: He dug a pit, layed a foundation, put up walls, etc...and oh, lots of waiting in between steps unless there was a late penalty. An outline without a lot of details.

 

[tellner]

Like I said before, personally I'm not trying to prove one by the other, I'm trying to lay them next to each other, and see how close they harmonize. So far, every time I've done that, I've found a basic misunderstanding, or wrong teaching on my part, that I've been delighted to change.

That is, indeed an excellent attitude to take towards the subject.

Spiritual Beliefs require you to do otherwise? If it's wisdom to re-interpret science in light of new evidence, why would it be foolish to re-interpret religion in the same situation?

Would 'twere so. Unfortunately, with revealed religion there is doctrine and there is error with nothing in between. If you disagree with doctrine you are wrong. The revelation or the sacred texts are inerrant. If they disagree with your evidence the evidence must be in error. You can say "Well, maybe by 'days' we don't actually mean one rotation of the Earth on its axis or 24 hours." It seldom comes around to "We were wrong. Let's modify what we believe."

Oh, sometimes you'll hear a bit of lip-service. "Read the Book for yourself," or "Look into your heart and pray about it." What they're generally selling is the assumption that you'll have to come around to their way of thinking after a perfunctory guided tour.

There are exceptions, of course. Aleister Crowley, bless his drugged out sex-crazed irresponsible heart, was onto a few profound things. One of the best was "We place no reliance on Virgin or Pigeon. Our method is Science. Our aim is religion." Many of what we call "mystics" offer methods for approaching Reality rather than a single immutable doctrine. There is an understanding that one can end up in many different places or even the same one by different ways. People like Thomas Merton, the Ari, Abdul Qadir Gilani, and the Zen Patriarchs are few and far between. They either end up being canonized or killed as heretics

If you go to the fundamentalists, anyone's fundamentalists your engineer's approach to the spiritual will make you no friends. Likewise the Church hierarchy, anyone's Church hierarchy, will hate you with a deathless passion. You represent a threat to institutional authority.

That's why, for instance, being a Sufi is illegal in all countries that follow Sharia. The idea that you are responsible for your own actions and spiritual development, not the guy who leads prayers at the mosque, not the mullahs, not the legal scholars, but you alone have to face the Ultimate Reality is terribly upsetting to the Authorities. In Christianity the mystics were killed off or relegated to obscure monasteries. Judaism shut off its mystical tradition with a heavy hand; you have to be forty, shomer mitzvah, married and able to sight-read Hebrew and Aramaic. Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha are enough for the common herd. And so on.

So, saying "oops" in science in noble -- I get rather excited when I get to say "oops" in religion, because that means I'm learning something!

I agree. Absolutely. But your way of going about it is scientific. If the revelation or dogma is disproven you go on to something else. That flies in the face of conventional religion which posits a single acceptable end point and no possibility that the dogma is fundamentally wrong.

I find it's best to leave Pure science to science, but I live in more of a "applied sciences" world (Civil Engineering, actually). You don't have that luxury.

You don't? If you design to code and the things you build consistently fall down do you investigate and change the code or say that the building couldn't have fallen down because the code is infallible?

As for "religion" (I actually don't like that term), Pure religion is the realm of theology and philosophy (theoretically, that is -- actually it becomes a function of tradition and security). "Applied Religion", if I can use the term, is going to overlap with other pursuits, and affect the way I live.

Absolutely. There's an essay I've been writing on other ways of looking at religion. In many traditions it's become a laundry list of things you believe. In others it's more what you do. That's one of the basic incompatibilities between the world-views of Judaism and normative Christianity. It ties in with a lot of the tradition vs. innovation arguments found in MT and other things. Definitely a topic for a different sort of forum.

My Rabbi and Shaykh come from rather different traditions. They say some very important things in similar ways. The Rabbi says "If any mitzvah (commandment, blessing, etc.) doesn't help you live a better life and make you a better Yid tear it out of the Torah and throw it away." The Shaykh says "You'll never find Allah in a mosque, only in your heart," and "Heaven and Hell are both traps. Heaven is nicer, but it's still a trap. The only important thing is to seek Allah."

If you went through the theology point by point they'd have little in common. But since action, training and clearing away the mental dross to perceive more clearly are central to their spiritual lives the important things are very congruent. There are reality checks built into the systems so that you don't fall into the positive feedback loops you get when all you (singular, plural, or collective ) do is talk to yourself.

 

[thardey]

Would 'twere so. Unfortunately, with revealed religion there is doctrine and there is error with nothing in between. If you disagree with doctrine you are wrong. The revelation or the sacred texts are inerrant. If they disagree with your evidence the evidence must be in error. You can say "Well, maybe by 'days' we don't actually mean one rotation of the Earth on its axis or 24 hours." It seldom comes around to "We were wrong. Let's modify what we believe."

In other threads I've brought up the idea that your World View determines how you interpret facts. I suppose I could bring a similar way of thinking here. I've seen people argue to the death about what "facts" were true, all the while not realizing that the other party agrees to the truth of the "facts" but chooses to interpret them differently. I've been quite successful, in today's church, in convincing some secure fundamentalists that I'm still agree to the same facts they do, but I am "trying out" alternative interpretations. (The insecure ones, well, that's a different story.)

Oh, sometimes you'll hear a bit of lip-service. "Read the Book for yourself," or "Look into your heart and pray about it." What they're generally selling is the assumption that you'll have to come around to their way of thinking after a perfunctory guided tour.

Oh, yeah, I've heard my share of that. It goes along with the line of "just wait 'till we get to heaven, and then your question will be answered." In other words "Shut up, kid, you're bothering me."

If you go to the fundamentalists, anyone's fundamentalists your engineer's approach to the spiritual will make you no friends. Likewise the Church hierarchy, anyone's Church hierarchy, will hate you with a deathless passion. You represent a threat to institutional authority.

Oh, more than that, I started this whole trip with the very challenge to institutional authority. I admit it's dangerous, in more ways than just to myself, but who's ever proven that God is safe?

That's why, for instance, being a Sufi is illegal in all countries that follow Sharia. The idea that you are responsible for your own actions and spiritual development, not the guy who leads prayers at the mosque, not the mullahs, not the legal scholars, but you alone have to face the Ultimate Reality is terribly upsetting to the Authorities. In Christianity the mystics were killed off or relegated to obscure monasteries. Judaism shut off its mystical tradition with a heavy hand; you have to be forty, shomer mitzvah, married and able to sight-read Hebrew and Aramaic. Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha are enough for the common herd. And so on.

Personally I have experienced that it is the herd who is upset by the thought of being responsible to your Almighty yourself. That's why people like to follow other spiritual leaders, it's one thing to be accountable to a human who makes mistakes like you, it's another to be accountable to your ultimate authority.

Of course, it is usually the herd that gets people lynched :uhohh:

I agree. Absolutely. But your way of going about it is scientific. If the revelation or dogma is disproven you go on to something else. That flies in the face of conventional religion which posits a single acceptable end point and no possibility that the dogma is fundamentally wrong.

Yeah, that's why I don't particularly like the term "religious".

You don't? If you design to code and the things you build consistently fall down do you investigate and change the code or say that the building couldn't have fallen down because the code is infallible?

If I stuck with Pure Science, I'll never get anything built in the first place. Especially since I'm moving into Traffic Engineering -- trying to predict human behavior using scientific means.

Absolutely. There's an essay I've been writing on other ways of looking at religion. In many traditions it's become a laundry list of things you believe. In others it's more what you do. That's one of the basic incompatibilities between the world-views of Judaism and normative Christianity. It ties in with a lot of the tradition vs. innovation arguments found in MT and other things. Definitely a topic for a different sort of forum.

My Rabbi and Shaykh come from rather different traditions. They say some very important things in similar ways. The Rabbi says "If any mitzvah (commandment, blessing, etc.) doesn't help you live a better life and make you a better Yid tear it out of the Torah and throw it away." The Shaykh says "You'll never find Allah in a mosque, only in your heart," and "Heaven and Hell are both traps. Heaven is nicer, but it's still a trap. The only important thing is to seek Allah."

If you went through the theology point by point they'd have little in common. But since action, training and clearing away the mental dross to perceive more clearly are central to their spiritual lives the important things are very congruent. There are reality checks built into the systems so that you don't fall into the positive feedback loops you get when all you (singular, plural, or collective ) do is talk to yourself.

Right, and I'm beginning to think that people will only do what they believe. However, there are many things we think we are supposed to believe, that we tell ourselves we believe, but we really don't. And we find that out when we violate our own conscience.

 

[tellner]

Yep. And that is precisely what Good Religion should address IMNVDHO. If it doesn't help you wake up and get out of your own head it's just another form of willful stupidity and spiritual blindness. Caffeine for the soul. That's what we need!

 

[thardey]

Yep. And that is precisely what Good Religion should address IMNVDHO. If it doesn't help you wake up and get out of your own head it's just another form of willful stupidity and spiritual blindness. Caffeine for the soul. That's what we need!

Amen!

 

[thardey]

IMNVDHO

????

 

[Sukerkin]

IMNVDHO = In My Not Very Deeply/Divinely/Devoutly? Humble Opinion

Excellent thread by the way gentlemen and profound kudos to thardey for taking no offense at the first few posts which could've been perceived as quite scathing - I suspect in your shoes that I would've not have handled it so well and the splendid discourse that followed would've been ruined :tup:.