Subject: evolution
Date: Sun, 05 May 2002
From: Flash Light
To: Dr. Sophronius
Dear Dr. Sophronius,
I appreciate you're continuing our spirited debate so soon despite your
pressing worldly problems. Your reply is exactly what I hope will evolve
into a dialog we might agree to publish on the web.
Dr. Sophronius: EXTINCTION IS AN OBSERVATION.
We don't need evolution to predict that if you take food sources away
animals will die.
Actually I believe we do. One might reasonably suppose that if
you take away food sources a species will seek out and find other food
sources. It is evolution that predicts this will be difficult because a
species has become adapted to particular food sources in a particular
environment.
Dr. Sophronius: STATING THEY EVOLVED DOES NOT PROVE IT.
THIS IS A MERE ASSERTION— SINCE WE OBSERVE IN NATURE THAT THESE
CREATURES –OR CREATURES LIKE THEM CO-EXIST, THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT
THEY ARE TRANSFORMATIONS OF EACH OTHER IN EITHER DIRECTION.
Let's see if we can agree that the fossil record proves
conclusively that evolution could not initially have progressed from
bird to fish. We find fossils of fish in the strata of the Ordovician
age, 500 million years ago. Reptiles first appear in the Carboniferous,
320 million years ago. Birds do not appear until we get to the Jurassic
195 million years ago. Simply by order of appearance we know there has
been a series of changes that are part of a sequence, and that the
sequence started with fish, reptiles occur later, and later still birds.
Thus the sequence can only be in one direction, whatever its cause. As
to proving evolution is the most likely cause, I'll get to that shortly.
Dr. Sophronius: The fossil record shows there are birds , fish, mammals that swim.
This is a discontinuous record. It is assumed that there are
transitional species, But there is little proof that we are seeing
animals that grew out of others.
Yes, we see mammals become fish, but we don't see whale fossils
in the Ordovician strata, rather we see them only after the strata where
mammals appear. Recent fossil finds suggest whales evolved from hippos.
Since hippos dwell in rivers, this seems consistent with evolution
theory, i.e. mammals that adapt to living in water gain advantages by
developing fish like forms. In short these changes are not random, if
they were, we would expect to see any fossil in any age, not a
progression. Since they don't seem attributable to chance, it appears
some force is at work producing a progression of new species. Evolution
appears the most credible theory. Yes there are gaps, but new fossils
are continuing to be found which fill in those gaps.
What is the alternative to the theory of evolution? If you posit a
creationist theory where the Creator is continually at work
turning out new creations at these progressive intervals only to watch
them become extinct, you admit the biblical account of creation is not
correct. Thereby your theory loses any authority the
biblical account might have lent it. Why then should anyone believe in a
"continuous creation" theory over an "evolution" theory?
We see mutations occur in animals and plants. Breeders capitalize on
such mutations to create new breeds There is no question the new breeds
evolved from the old ones because we can see each intervening
generation, but those intervening forms are never bred in quantity, and
would be unlikely to show up in our fossil record. It seems entirely
reasonable that "natural selection" can serve the breeder's function of
favoring certain mutations. You present no evidence that contradicts
evolution. There is no evidence (not even biblical) that we should
expect to see continuous creation. Of all explanations, evolution seems
the most likely. Why then can you not agree evolution is the best theory
we have?
Is it that you have difficulty reconciling the idea of a Creator with
"creation by evolution?" This presents no difficulty to Logical
Pantheists. The biological outcome in any ecosystem depends on the sum
of all forces operating in and upon the ecosystem. Since Logical
Pantheism defines God as the sum of all force in the universe, God
encompasses all the forces at work in the ecosystem, hence all the
forces at work causing change, hence God causes the changes. This does
not require faith to believe, rather it follows logically from the
Logical Pantheist definition of God.
I would not have presented a complete Logical Pantheist view of
evolution if I did not discuss the role of Spirit. Neither the birds,
nor mammals would have triumphed, except that they care for their young.
This is how Spirit evolves. The program the organism operates by becomes
as important as the DNA which determines the organism's bodily
structure. Among humans the programs we operate by are the myths we
believe in. Thus Spirit can change the course of evolution and alter
history, becoming as important as the forces which gave rise to the
ecosystem initially. To the Logical Pantheist, this is what justifies
the inclusion of the Holy Ghost in the trinity as a co-equal of the
forces of creation.
Dr. Sophronius: . . . there is little proof that we are seeing animals that grew out of
others. Most scientists will admit this FACT.
The FACT is causation can't be proven. If you heat water a 100
times, and each time it boils, that doesn't prove that heating water
causes it to boil. However, it contributes evidence to that
theory. Similarly, gaps in the fossil record lead evolutionists to
predict fossils may be found which fill in those gaps. Such fossils
continue to be found, and while that doesn't prove evolution, it
certainly contributes evidence to that theory, making it the most
credible explanation.
Dr. Sophronius: Creationism is difficult to explain I agree
But you don't yet agree its far more difficult to explain than
evolution, making evolution more likely to be closest to the truth.
Flash: Creationism is hard pressed to explain
why a Creator would create countless species, only to allow them to
become extinct.
Dr. Sophronius: He'll let us do the same, eh?
If you posit a continuous Creator, then that Creator is also
presumably responsible for creating AIDS, Ebola and other plagues, one of which
may yet prove fitter than we.
Flash: if by monotheism you mean, "the doctrine of the existence of
only one God" (as my dictionary defines it), that belief appears to have
taken hold only relatively recently. It does not appear to be supported
by the Old Testament.
Dr. Sophronius: NOW I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY “APPEAR TO SUPPORTED”
I mean, where do you see the Old Testament say the
other gods don't exist, which the dictionary defines as monotheism's
claim, and which Christians such as yourself assume is the truth.
Dr. Sophronius: CHECK!!! MANY A PSALM IS ABOUT THE WOODEN gods THAT MEN
WORSHIP — CARRYING THEM AROUND WITH THEM.
Exactly my point. Such references seem clearly aimed at the idols
the polytheists would carry through the streets on ritual occasions.
As I've said, the polytheists hoped their gods would dwell in those
idols while their gods were on earth. The passages you refer to only
confirm the existence of these idols, they don't deny the gods
existence.
Anyway I checked Psalms, I didn't find any reference to "wooden gods,"
but here are my results:
5:4 Thou art not a God who delights in wickedness- Casts aspersion on
some unnamed other Gods, but doesn't deny their existence. Doesn't even
go so far as to claim all other Gods delight in wickedness. Rather it is
men who are continually accused of wickedness in the psalms.
16:4 those who choose another god multiply their sorrow- again does not
claim those competitor gods don't exist.
31:6 Thou hatest those who pay regard to vain idols- actually
polytheists wouldn't have much regard for a vain idol either, they
preferred an idol their god was willing to inhabit, but the
speaker still hasn't denied other gods exist.
51:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God" - insults atheists,
not polytheists.
81:9 you shall not bow down to a foreign god- doesn't deny the foreign
gods exist.
86:8 There is none like thee among the gods- what more proof do you need
that the speaker believed other gods existed?
86:10 thou alone are God- this comes the closest to modern monotheism,
but the speaker had said two lines back that there were other gods, so
this seems intended either as flattery, and/or to suggest Yahweh is "god
of gods."
97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boasts in
worthless idols; all gods bow down before him- That last phrase puts it
in perspective: the speaker believes his god is superior, but he still
sees those other gods as existing.
97:9 thou art exhaulted far above all gods- if the speaker doesn't
believe other gods exist, why is he saying this?
106:19 They made a molten calf in Horeb, and worshipped a molten image.
106:20 They exchanged the glory of God, for the image of an ox that eats
grass.
106:28 Then they attached themselves to the Baal of Peor- again clear
evidence Jews were willing to believe in other gods, note the
speaker is not denying Baal exists, even as he disses the idol.
106:38 They sacrificed their sons and daughters . . .to the idols of
Canaan- The head of the Canaanite pantheon was El (depicted as a bearded
old man), who became Elohim in the Bible. Under El were Baal (depicted
as a bull), Yahweh (also depicted as an old man), and Asherah (depicted
as a woman riding a lion, often with a snake in her hand). In this
context one can see Yahweh's followers, who had by this time had
combined Elohim and Yahweh into one god, trying to place Elohim Yahweh
at the head of the pantheon.
(I also find it interesting that Asherah was called "mistress of the
gods," and was considered a consort of El, Baal and Yahweh. Apparently
before the Bible was written, God had a sex life.)
The story of Abraham and Isaac is often cited as the point
that Judaism abandoned human sacrifice. The ancient Egyptians appear to
have abandoned it before that. Regrettable though it was that the other
Canaanite gods still accepted child sacrifice, can we agree the authors
of the Psalms did not deny that those other gods existed, and therefore
were not monotheists in the sense of the modern definition?
Dr. Sophronius: PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THEM AND THE BELIEF AFFECTS THEIR LIVES.
BUT FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE LIVING GOD, HE WILLS TO ACT AND IS AN
INDEPENDENT FORCE ON OUR LIVES. SOMETHING LIKE GRAVITY!
Logical Pantheism defines God as the sum of all energy in the
universe. Thus God is not simply like gravity, but encompasses all forms
of energy in the universe, including gravity.
"He wills to act," raises an issue for Logical Pantheism. Gravity does
not "will to act," it simply acts. To ascribe "will" to God
anthropomorphizes God. The "will" that you describe, a
Logical Pantheist would attribute to either "Man," or "Spirit."
Those who accept the "trinity" are willing to accept "Spirit" as
co-equal with "God the Father." For them, this gives the power of
"Spirit" its due. To me it seems closer to ancient understandings. For
the Logical Pantheist it explains why acts which "God" permits may be
abhorrent to "Spirit." I'm sure you can think of examples, but the child
born with AIDS or severe birth defects comes to mind.
Flash In the time of King Solomon, we read that Solomon was told
polytheists were worshipping in the temple, and he was asked what to do.
"Say Amen," he replied.
Dr. Sophronius: SHOW ME THIS ONE WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE, PLEASE
I'm still trying to find it again, but if you doubt it, read I
Kings 11. That chapter makes it clear Solomon worshipped other gods, so
he certainly believed they existed. I see now why Solomon was regarded
as wise: his acceptance of other nation's beliefs may explain why he was
at peace with those nations during his reign.
. . . suggesting that at his time the modern definition of
monotheism had still not taken hold.
Dr. Sophronius: IT STILL HAS NOT EVIDENTLY (:-)
Would this were true, I believe the world would be a more
peaceful place if it were.
Flash: . . . Following is an excerpt from "Pagan and Christian Creeds," by
Edward Carpenter . . . "of all or nearly all the
deities above-mentioned it was said and believed that: They were born . . .
in a Cave or Underground Chamber."
Dr. Sophronius: AN OBVIOUS CHOICE
Why is this obvious? Actually it shows the "birth in a manger" as
one of the few original touches in the Gospel version.
(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer,
Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer.
Dr. Sophronius: WHAT LEADER WOULD NOT WANT TO CALL HIMSELF THIS?
Actually most biblical kings seemed to prefer describing
themselves as great warriors, listing all the enemies they slew.
Flash:. . . As a sociologist you
should be able to compare those systems without having to assume one is
"correct," . . .
Dr. Sophronius: EVERY ORTHODOXY BELIEVES THIS
OF ITSELF BY DEFINITION—the question is how do we know which one is
right?
Why assume any orthodoxy is right? Socrates came to the opposite
conclusion, if you assume you're right, you stop seeking the truth.
Dr. Sophronius: The notion of “it works for me” just does not cut it, since there
are power differentials vs. justice at issue.
The notion I'm suggesting is, "it works for us." If a society is
content in its beliefs, what right have Crusaders, or Jihads, or other
defenders of orthodoxy to slay them for having different beliefs?
Flash:. . . Rather, the issues are whether a belief system meets the
needs of its followers, and avoids destructive tendencies
Dr. Sophronius: THIS NOTION ALONE WILL GET US
INTO TROUBLE
Please explain, it seems the opposite notion gets us into trouble
. . . (e.g. religious wars, persecutions, etc.) On this basis it appears
to me that polytheism is superior to monotheism in avoiding the
consequences of intolerance.
Dr. Sophronius: Tolerance is intolerant because it does not tolerate
intolerance.
This is really disturbing. First for its apparent intolerance,
and second for its sophistry. Are you against tolerance? I hope not.
Tolerant people are tolerant of intolerant people, but they don't give
intolerant people the right to harm others. For example, the ACLU
defends the rights of the KKK to hold rallies and express their views,
but not to discriminate against minorities. Perhaps an analogy should be
made between tolerance and free speech. Free speech, as the Supreme
Court famously said, doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a
crowded theater. Similarly, tolerance tolerates intolerance, but not
intolerant acts that cause harm. Maybe you can't help feeling
intolerant, because you were raised with certain counter-productive
values, but tolerance requires you not afflict others with your
intolerance.
Dr. Sophronius: I for one don’t want to be tolerated. I want to be understood.
We can barely understand ourselves, let alone each other. Since
truly understanding each other seems impossible, tolerance
seems the best we can hope for, and our only chance for peace.
Dr. Sophronius: MY CHRISTIAN UPBRINGING WAS NOT A HEAVY DOSAGE OF CHRISTIAN
DO-GOODERS IN MY LIFE. TO THE CONTRARY, MY SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS HAD
NO IDEA ABOUT THE POWER OF THE LIVING G-D. MY SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS
WERE PLEASANT LIBERALS WHO HAD US COLOR PICTURES IN EARLY YEARS AND HAD
US TRYING ESP EXPERIMENTS. I WAS NOT IMPRESSED.
NONE OF MY MINISTERS SEEMED TO COMPREHEND THE SUPERNATURAL POWER NOR DID
THEY TELL THEIR CONGREGATION ABOUT IT.
SO, FOR THE MOST PART, I WAS BORN WITH A HUNGER THAT DID NOT SEEM TO
COME FROM THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM I WAS IN CONTACT.
From the view point of Logical Pantheism, what your church seems
to have been missing was an appreciation of the tremendous power of
Spirit. Something that Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. seem
to you to be more in touch with. Again from the Logical Pantheism view,
this idea of Spirit relates to the idea of the Holy Ghost, and was
passed down to Christianity from the older beliefs. This may account for
why it was missing from Unitarianism which rejects the trinity.
But don't mistakenly think your beliefs weren't programmed by
this less spirited denomination. Even though you're now drawn to
non-denominational services you still retain absolute adherence to the
dogmas of Unitarianism, e.g. denial of the trinity. You can't help it.
You've been programmed to think this way. Those coloring books
apparently worked, even if you weren't impressed by them.
Dr. Sophronius: >>Sociology examines social organization. Not all social
organizations are created equal!
Agreed. I'm suggesting a social organization based on
polytheistic beliefs is superior to one based on the modern notion of
monotheism, or even the ancient notion which led biblical kings to
believe they were justified in slaughtering the followers of other gods.
Dr. Sophronius: YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN READING “SICK SOCIETIES:
Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony” BY ROBERT EDGERTON
I don't subscribe to the myth of primitive harmony. Native
Americans fought terrible inter-tribal wars, for example. But look at
the wars in the world today and you see why I don't believe in the myth
that modern man has advanced much beyond "primitive societies," either.
Flash: . . . From the point of view of a sociologist you needn't worry that
different cultures have "incorrect" beliefs. Mithra saves! Anubis saves!
Jesus saves! All of these beliefs are equally valid,
Dr. Sophronius: --NOTHING REALLY IMPORTANT IS EQUALLY
VALID! THAT'S LIKE SAYING YOU CAN GIVE ALCOHOL TO A BABY BECAUSE ALL
LIQUIDS ARE EQUAL.
I don't agree with your analogy. It's like saying you can give a
baby any balanced diet that's appropriate for infants, whether that
diet is based on American cuisine, Egyptian cuisine, Roman cuisine, etc.
In fact the French do give alcohol to children with no apparent harm.
Dr. Sophronius: EQUALLY VALID FOR WHAT?
Flash: each having
accomplished salvation from fear in the culture it developed in.
Dr. Sophronius: OF COURSE THIS CANNOT BE
TRUE EITHER. PEOPLE WHO ARE IGNORANT ARE MUCH MORE FRIGHTENED OF SIMPLE
DIFFICULTIES THAN EDUCATED PEOPLE. PEOPLE WHO HAVE UNDERSTANDING ARE
MUCH LESS LIKELY TO BE VICTIMS OF CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THOSE WHO DO NOT.
If your implication is that we are not ignorant, it sounds like
cultural bias. You are as ignorant of ancient Egyptian beliefs, as they
were of ours. But they have a better excuse.
People who live in a jungle and understand what plants are edible, how
to avoid predators, etc., "ARE MUCH LESS LIKELY TO BE VICTIMS OF
CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THOSE WHO DO NOT," but that doesn't mean your western
education would be of any use helping you survive there. Similarly your
knowledge would not be much help in navigating the social and legal
rules, or theological questions of ancient Egypt, or Canaan, or Rome, so
how can you claim their knowledge of what their gods expected, and what
their gods offered, would not have been at least as useful to them, as
your knowledge of the Bible is to you, for addressing fears about the
afterlife and providing comfort to the living?
Dr. Sophronius: SOME RELIGIONS KEEP PEOPLE IGNORANT, VESTING POWER ONLY IN THE
LEADERS!
Marx argued that all religions keep people ignorant, replacing
thought with dogma. But perhaps what you have in mind are the "mystery
religions," which did keep their rituals secret, although only until you
were initiated. But most ancient Egyptian cults were not mystery
religions. Anyone could ask questions of the priests, and even the gods.
All knew the myth of their local deity.
It's hard to think of any system that doesn't "VEST POWER ONLY IN THE
LEADERS!" Perhaps the direct democracies of ancient Greece? But that led
to the trial of Socrates, and caused Plato to fear the tyranny of the
masses.
Dr. Sophronius: BY THEIR FRUITS YOU WILL KNOW THEM, EH?
The fruits of monotheism appear to be religious wars, the
Inquisition, the burning of heretics, witch hunts, and an enduring
legacy of religious intolerance.
Flash:. . .P.P.S.: Where in the RSV do you find support for being cremated?
That is a practice taken from Buddhist, and Hindu beliefs. I don't
recall any references to cremation in the Bible. Rather there are
references to God raising the dead from their bones. Hence the
importance of preserving bones in Judaism and Christianity. Why are you
willing to take such a risk with your chances of resurrection when it
does not appear consistent with the literal teachings of the Bible?
Dr. Sophronius: SO IF I AM INADVERTENTLY CREMATED IN AN AIRPLANE CRASH, I WOULD
NOT GO TO HEAVEN.
Logical Pantheism believes it would make your physical
resurrection more difficult, although not impossible. Logical Pantheism
holds that the resurrection of the dead began in the 1980's when genetic
engineers reported resurrecting DNA taken from an ancient Egyptian mummy
and growing it in the lab. That, of course, is when I first realized the
ancient Egyptians were on to something that we barely understand.
As to going to heaven, if by "heaven" you mean a spiritual paradise, I
hold with the Buddhists who say, "No one will achieve Nirvana, until we
all achieve Nirvana." How could heaven be a state of bliss for anyone,
knowing that others were left in torment? Logical Pantheism holds that
no one can live in a state of bliss until the earth itself is turned
into a paradise, and war, intolerance, and involuntary suffering have
been ended.
On the other hand, if by "going to heaven" you mean physically dwelling
in the sky above us, there are now commercial rockets that will launch
your ashes into orbit for a fee. Timothy Leary departed earth in this
manner.
I'm not being facetious, rather I'm pointing out that mankind has
continued to evolved, and is gradually gaining all the powers attributed
to biblical gods. We all fly through the sky, and our astronauts, and
what remains of Tim Leary, have ascended to dwell in the heavens. We are
decoding the DNA of life and altering it at will. Metaphysical questions
are no longer "beyond physics," and Logical Pantheism, as a
philosophical system, seeks to address the questions being raised.
Dr. Sophronius: I JUST DON'T WORRY ABOUT THESE THINGS
Ignorance is bliss? Your only concern is getting tenure and that
"fix" of Spirit on Sundays? What spiritual questions do you worry about?
Flash: My father did not live two years beyond the age I'm at
now. Nor did my grandfather, nor great-grandfather.
Dr. Sophronius:IF YOU REALLY THINK YOU'RE SHEDDING THIS MORTAL COIL SO SOON, YOU
HAD BETTER ARRANGE TO VISIT ME IN WEST VIRGINIA!
Why, when it's so much easier to visit you in cyber space? In
fact, it seems like good practice for when I do leave "THIS MORTAL
COIL." Because if we post our correspondence on a website, you will
continue to be able to visit me there, making contact with my spirit
through our words long after my body departs.