Two questions...evolution - environment - belief systems

Madou

So I have two questions that puzzle me, and I would like people to share their take on the matter. Generally, I think I have a good handle on things (yes yes, the words of a fool, I know), but some things just escape me.

1) We are products of nature, having evolved from bacteria all the way up to our present state of being - we call this evolution (defined as 'any process of formation or growth; development' [dictionary.com] ). I realise the word evolution exists only as a label, created to give sense to the process - but it's this idea of development that gets me.

We are told, and scientific research indicates, that we are destroying this planet because of decades of polution - global warming. Now being products of nature, does this mean that, inadvertently, nature is destroying itself. I know the immediate answer is that it's not natures fault at, we are the masters of our own destiny, exercise free will, etc. However, this doesn't cut it for me though.

We have evolved to such a state that we have the capacity to destroy everything around us (our development being subject to factors external of ourselves), and the inevitability is that we will. We have no control over our own physical development, we being products of natural development - this evolution. So my question is, is existence and the evolutionary process fundamentally flawed, when given all forecasts, it is likely to consume itself?

Or rather, is it wrong to consider life in terms of 'nature', but rather that it is a simply a ping-pong ball ricocheting through time and space, and eventually it is destined for the gutter?

Lastly, will it eventually come to pass that 'evolution' will be an inappropriate term to describe the development of the human species? Or has evolution simply peaked?

2) Ok, second question, I'll keep it shorter. Why do extremely intelligent people still subscribe to belief systems and the notion of grand deities. People I meet everyday - quoters of all walks of philosophy, appreciators of existentialist thought, believers of evolution - who still get down on their knees at night to say their prayers.

Can it only be put down to specific personal situations, familial environment, culture, schooling, if great tragedy has been encountered in one's life, brainwashing, etc.

Surely logical thought does not accomodate blind faith, does it?

(I mean no offence by this question, and I suppose it is only due to my own personal situation that I have grown up completely detached from and disaffected by any sort of belief system. I pose the question for a better understanding.)

Joe1919

I will attempt two quick answers.

1 The word 'destroy' is value laden as we usually apply destroy to what we value. Indeed it is often argued that energy (and to some extent matter) cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed or changed. So if man transforms the earth to such an extent that all human life is destroyed, we cannot really say that this is 'good' or 'bad' without introducing the idea of 'value', but value is always subjective. The human race been destroyed may be 'bad' for humans but it may be 'good' for some species of rats or cockroaches or bacteria. So all talk of purpose (except in terms of survival) and good/bad is irrelevant in terms of evolution. Evolution is just a blind mechanism. Man may burn himself out so to speak, his intelligence having become a disadvantage from a survival point of view, and evolution may favour the bacterium. Who is to say that man, just because he has a more complex genetic code than bacteria ( or has more advanced reasoning capacities) is more entitled to exist? (unless, of course we introduce some religious idea)

2 Always remember that 'belief' is subjective and is more than pure reason. There are many reasons for belief
(1) We have intuitions and pre-judgements (categories, space and time) that we must have in the first place to make sense of anything at all.
(2) Logical Reason as you have stated
(3) Experience, we apply intuition and reason to our experiences.
(4) Desire (will). This is often ignored but motivation, desire and intentionality are important. We focus our consciousness with an intention or desire, and our ultimate desire may not be truth but happiness or freedom from pain. Modern science seems to pre-suppose that truth is an ultimate value.(i.e. What motivates people most? Truth or Happiness.)
(5) Trust. Many people are quite content to just trust other people and their judgements. They 'go with the flow' so to speak.
(6) Many religions are reasonable in terms of promoteing moral values such as equality, justice etc. and traditionally fitted in well with society.

Finally, we are all brainwashed or socially constructed to a large extent. Education and socialisation is all about training and shaping our thoughts and developing what culture or society think are the right habits. Also, what advertising about but a form of brainwashing?
One could be cynical and say that consumerism is a modern form of religion. Material goods are not just goods in themselves but have a 'symbolic' value, i.e. they make a statement of 'who I am'. They have an extra-material value.(e.g. Logo)

A Primal Nut

Bear in mind that this would not be the first time a mass extinction would have occured. Nature has destroyed itself before. The pattern is start with something simple, then progressively grow until eventually there aren't enough resources on the planet been created to keep up with demand. Mass extinction occurs - a few species survive (not necessarily the fittest, but the most adaptable) these creatures keep evolving until eventually the planet again runs out of resources. Mass extinction occurs and so on. Its a natural cycle that is unlikely to reach stability, unless perhaps, the selection of those that are most adaptable, to survive a mass extinction, eventually leads to an advanced race that requires extremely low resources to survive.

Occasionally, of course, external factors such as a comet can also impact and cause extinctions.

It is incredible that we are the first species truly capable of intentionally destroying the earth, and its unlikely to be the last. The next one will probably call us dinosaurs.

Incidentally, the concept of artificial is flawed unless used as a relative term, i.e. that caused by our own species. Everything we do is still natural, of course.

As for evolution of the human species, we've evolved before - lactose tolerance in the early stages of agriculture - in fact i think a lot of allergies are things that most humans evolved to tolerate but now and again the old intolerance pops up in the gene pool. Apparently, there is a gene spreading which helps humans live in massive groups.

In reality, natural selection is unlikely to occur much more in the human species. This is partly due to the welfare state, improved medical abilities to cope with genetic diseases, ivf, etc - people who would normally die young or not reproduce are now able to. The only natural selection likely to occur is perhaps will get slightly better looking over time.

Its possible artificial selection could occur to some degree - selection of sperm donors based on certain conditions, e.g. eye colour or hair colour. That could lead to evolution on a scale never seen before if it becomes more common. Doubt it will for a long time yet though.

Zillah

Madou wrote: »

Now being products of nature, does this mean that, inadvertently, nature is destroying itself.

Well, nature isn't really a thing. But yes, life on this planet has reached a point where we have the intelligence to use technology that is capable of exterminating life on our planet. It's not nearly so clean and poetic as "nature destroying itself" though.

Lastly, will it eventually come to pass that 'evolution' will be an inappropriate term to describe the development of the human species? Or has evolution simply peaked?

The future of our species will be determined technologically. The speed at which evolution progresses is miniscule compared to technology. Even if we were to have another dark age and lose most of our technology, the few thousand years it would take to get it all back is nothing on an evolutionary scale. We will either destroy ourselves or gain total power over the shape and abilities of our bodies and brains before evolution has much to say on the matter.

2) Ok, second question, I'll keep it shorter. Why do extremely intelligent people still subscribe to belief systems and the notion of grand deities.

It's an extremely complicated subject. For the sake of simplicity I shall list some of the more interesting possibilities:

1 - Childhood indoctrination. Children accept what they are told. Tell a child something often enough when they're young enough and it will become fundamental to how they think.

2 - Memetic transmission. Thoughts, ideas and belief systems are subject to an evolutionary process of their own. The beliefs that are popular today are the result of thousands of years of natural selection, and they have become very good at dragging people in.

3 - Emotional influences. People will let their intellectual standards slip if they feel strongly enough about something. Social pressure, fear of death and existential angst can all have this effect.

4 - Self deceit. I suspect that a great deal of religious believers don't really believe it all that much. They may go through the motions and speak with their imaginary friend but they can only do this because they refuse to allow their critical faculties to take a good look at what they believe.

nyarlothothep

Zillah wrote: »

Well, nature isn't really a thing. But yes, life on this planet has reached a point where we have the intelligence to use technology that is capable of exterminating life on our planet. It's not nearly so clean and poetic as "nature destroying itself" though.



The future of our species will be determined technologically. The speed at which evolution progresses is miniscule compared to technology. Even if we were to have another dark age and lose most of our technology, the few thousand years it would take to get it all back is nothing on an evolutionary scale. We will either destroy ourselves or gain total power over the shape and abilities of our bodies and brains before evolution has much to say on the matter.



It's an extremely complicated subject. For the sake of simplicity I shall list some of the more interesting possibilities:

1 - Childhood indoctrination. Children accept what they are told. Tell a child something often enough when they're young enough and it will become fundamental to how they think.

2 - Memetic transmission. Thoughts, ideas and belief systems are subject to an evolutionary process of their own. The beliefs that are popular today are the result of thousands of years of natural selection, and they have become very good at dragging people in.

3 - Emotional influences. People will let their intellectual standards slip if they feel strongly enough about something. Social pressure, fear of death and existential angst can all have this effect.

4 - Self deceit. I suspect that a great deal of religious believers don't really believe it all that much. They may go through the motions and speak with their imaginary friend but they can only do this because they refuse to allow their critical faculties to take a good look at what they believe.

+1

Also YUH! for humanity, we kicked evolutions ass!

8kvscdpglqnyr4

Madou wrote: »

1) We are products of nature, having evolved from bacteria all the way up to our present state of being -...
Lastly, will it eventually come to pass that 'evolution' will be an inappropriate term to describe the development of the human species? Or has evolution simply peaked?

"Over 99% of species that ever lived are now extinct" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event)

I fail to see why we think we are special and we can never become extinct.

Madou wrote: »

2)Why do extremely intelligent people still subscribe to belief systems and the notion of grand deities.

What Zillah said ...

Húrin

Your first question is a great one and demands a long answer which i don't yet have time to give.

Madou wrote: »

2) Ok, second question, I'll keep it shorter. Why do extremely intelligent people still subscribe to belief systems and the notion of grand deities. People I meet everyday - quoters of all walks of philosophy, appreciators of existentialist thought, believers of evolution - who still get down on their knees at night to say their prayers.

Can it only be put down to specific personal situations, familial environment, culture, schooling, if great tragedy has been encountered in one's life, brainwashing, etc.

Surely logical thought does not accomodate blind faith, does it?

Faith isn't blind. I am one of those people you are describing. You will never understand this if you keep your thinking on the subject dogmatic; you will just think in circular arguments. You need to be open to the possibility that religious belief is true. Otherwise you will have unsatisfactory arguments to explain the existence of theism, that presuppose atheism.

I think, contrary to the first thing every atheist says, that the evidence available points more to the existence of God than his non-existence. Your determinist explanations above fly in the face of my experience. I am from a non-religious family but became a Christian. I know people from countries where Christianity is a minority (in some cases a persecuted one) but they researched Jesus and became convinced of the truth of his claims.

Madou

Húrin wrote: »

Faith isn't blind. I am one of those people you are describing. You will never understand this if you keep your thinking on the subject dogmatic; you will just think in circular arguments. You need to be open to the possibility that religious belief is true. Otherwise you will have unsatisfactory arguments to explain the existence of theism, that presuppose atheism.

I think, contrary to the first thing every atheist says, that the evidence available points more to the existence of God than his non-existence. Your determinist explanations above fly in the face of my experience. I am from a non-religious family but became a Christian. I know people from countries where Christianity is a minority (in some cases a persecuted one) but they researched Jesus and became convinced of the truth of his claims.

I appreciate the comment that one must be open to the possibility that religious belief is true, given that cognition on any level is influenced by sensation (ala Kant), and the credibility of any "truth" can at once be deemed unsatisfactory due to the subjective nature of all human experience.

As for this being an open door for religious belief (I would be of the contention that Kant's philiosophy is rather overtly a theological vehicle, yet still explains a critical aspect of human understanding), I find the idea of collective religious belief quite problematic. Humans experience life subjectively, with vastly different experiences, again sensation aiding understanding. It does not stand to reason that all these different experiences should lead to a unified belief,a religious belief. Of all the possible permutations that come from experience leading to understanding, it is absurd for me to accept that all these routes lead to the same destination - that there is on God, the creator, the Almighty.

For these reasons, I must believe that religion is hysteria, and this can be only rational explanation. It is something that denies the personal journey for truth and understanding - and rather - offers neat truths, explanations, and moral codes for humans to live by.

Naturally, I appreciate the complete fallibility of any affirmations I have made here, given that all such affirmations are subjective.

Do thesists generally accommodate the notion that their beliefs may be fallible?

Húrin

Madou wrote: »

I find the idea of collective religious belief quite problematic. Humans experience life subjectively, with vastly different experiences, again sensation aiding understanding.

People's ideas about religion are not determined entirely by their environment. We may have subjective points of view but there is more that makes humans similar to each other than different. For instance we nearly all have an inbuilt moral conscience.

It does not stand to reason that all these different experiences should lead to a unified belief,a religious belief.

There are nuances of belief within denomimations of religion. However, if there really is one God, it makes sense that there is much unity of beliefs about his nature.

Of all the possible permutations that come from experience leading to understanding, it is absurd for me to accept that all these routes lead to the same destination - that there is on God, the creator, the Almighty.

I don't think that the permutations are that different from each other. God appears to use similar methods to communicate with people. We can learn by dialogue. Indeed, in both Biblical history and contemporary observations, religion is a communal experience.

It is something that denies the personal journey for truth and understanding - and rather - offers neat truths, explanations, and moral codes for humans to live by.

Well like many people in this capitalist society you appear to view the spiritual journey as an entirely privatised one. However, I think that spiritual growth is achieved largely through dialogue with other people. Holy scriptures are a written form of this. Individuals can only go so far on their own steam.

You speak of truths, explanations, and morals as a bad thing. Is it not better than ignorance? I don't understand why atheists think that religious people do not evaluate their beliefs, just because they actually have defined beliefs.

I certainly find it more more liberal than the exclusive naturalism that most atheists insist upon.

Do theists generally accommodate the notion that their beliefs may be fallible?

I have found that theists are more often open to being refuted than atheists are. The latter tend to insist that their beliefs are self-evident, and attack theistic beliefs as a way to defend their own.

An Sionnach Rua

Externally, intelligence has nothing to do with faith.