Is macroevolution a form of paganism?

[Iconasostacles]

What you're describing is life. There is no reason to assume that life continues after it has died. Evolution does not specify anything spiritual or otherworldly. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to claim that a teaching in evolution leads to a pagan belief.

Yes, "life" or at least the abstracted essence thereof. There is no reason to assume that this quality has no substance apart from its temporary material embodiment -- there are only a variety of philosophical options that describe how such a realm of 'interior life quality' would basically be unverifiable by (basically) any conventional physical means.

Evolution, as you say, does not specify anything spiritual -- but it does not specify anything at all above the general notion of organisms taking shape over vast aeons of time in accordance with their relationships. Nothing 'otherworldly' is specified. Yet this "life" quality and the mental imagery associated with its formative action over enormously trans-human spans of time has the same basic shape as if we invisioned an otherworldly "spirit" performing the creative deeds. There is a mental or emotional affirmation of life as a ancient, organism-transcending force that originally lived in matter but somehow, incredibly, mysteriously, awakened and 'made' human culture and psychology. That is a picture that is flush with paganism (on one of its sides, so to speak).

There is no direct, rational connexion between teaching evolutionary theory and encouraging paganism. Yet we can certainly see that a shift of focus onto the very impressive activities of 'life' within the realm of matter makes for easier veneration of both life and matter. A healthy Christianity, however, should not live compressed with fear, anxious that children could be convinced by such things. Rather we should see that a healthy paganism is a partial/limited piece of a larger, more comprehensive spiritual viewpoint.

Eating encourages defecation which takes away from the contemplation of the Highest Value (Divinity) but no eating, and therefore no defecation, leads to a much worse situation in which there is no contemplating of the Highest whatsoever.

Whatever structural correspondences between the ideas of paganism and those of evolutionary theory, neither are "flat surface" rivals to Christian faith. The higher is not damaged by the health of the lower -- even if it disagrees with the lower.

All people have the capacity for those traits regardless of their metaphysical beliefs.

Precisely -- so the mere presence of such traits must be held at arm's length from a consideration of the relative merits of various worldviews. We can make a loose estimation that paganism is, for various reasons, more primitive, less accurate, than certain other views without knowing anything about any particular 'pagan'. This is an obvious point but always worth remembering. i

 

[Vision in Verse]

We can make a loose estimation that paganism is, for various reasons, more primitive, less accurate, than certain other views without knowing anything about any particular 'pagan'. This is an obvious point but always worth remembering.

Both paganism and Christianity are primitive alternatives to science, the structuring of social hierarchy, and a culture's moral development.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Both paganism and Christianity are primitive alternatives to science, the structuring of social hierarchy, and a culture's moral development.

One can hardly begin to speculate on your interest in a Christian Theology forum if you feel it is merely a primitive alternative to science! Not that my own motives are not entirely suspect, from time to time...

We should, I think, be willing to admit that the rational level of cognition, worldcentric values, trans-cultural moral development, democracy, etc. is a considerable advance upon both the archaic-pagan model and the type of "religious nation" mentality that grew up among the mythic empires.

It is not out of the question that some Christianity (or even, under peculiar conditions some paganism) might exceed the leading edge of social, moral, spiritual and psychological development.

The current faux-debate between Religion and Science is not only a form of linguistic hobby but also may be the site at which the two cross-fertilize each other on a massive scale.

 

[Vision in Verse]

One can hardly begin to speculate on your interest in a Christian Theology forum if you feel it is merely a primitive alternative to science! Not that my own motives are not entirely suspect, from time to time...

We should, I think, be willing to admit that the rational level of cognition, worldcentric values, trans-cultural moral development, democracy, etc. is a considerable advance upon both the archaic-pagan model and the type of "religious nation" mentality that grew up among the mythic empires.
It is not out of the question that some Christianity (or even, under peculiar conditions some paganism) might exceed the leading edge of social, moral, spiritual and psychological development.
The current faux-debate between Religion and Science is not only a form of linguistic hobby but also may be the site at which the two cross-fertilize each other on a massive scale.

That's very interesting and possibly true. My motives however are not so elusive. There is a motive of discussion for knowledge.

 

[Iconasostacles]

That's very interesting and possibly true. My motives however are not so elusive. There is a motive of discussion for knowledge.

What knowledge might you be after in such a context?

 

[Vision in Verse]

What knowledge might you be after in such a context?

Knowledge of other people's beliefs. Knowledge of my own beliefs.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Knowledge of other people's beliefs. Knowledge of my own beliefs.

What have you learned so far? What items are on the shifting borderland between what you feel is believable and what others claim to believe?

 

[Vision in Verse]

What have you learned so far? What items are on the shifting borderland between what you feel is believable and what others claim to believe?

So your question is: "What do you think?" That's a loaded question. I could write a book on it. I doubt that's what you're looking for. What exactly are you looking for?

 

[bob b]

I love my life; I will lose it. If I hated my life, I would still lose it. Agree with this passage from the Bible, I do not...

This is probably because you do not believe in an afterlife.

If you did, then you might understand the logic, wisdom and meaning in the short verse.

(you obviously do not also understand the style and purpose of the "exaggerated" form of Eastern speaking which was often used by Jesus Christ)

 

[Vision in Verse]

This is probably because you do not believe in an afterlife.
If you did, then you might understand the logic, wisdom and meaning in the short verse.
(you obviously do not also understand the style and purpose of the "exaggerated" form of Eastern speaking which was often used by Jesus Christ)

You would be correct. For those who believe in an afterlife it is wisdom. For those who don't, it is foolishness.

 

[Iconasostacles]

So your question is: "What do you think?" That's a loaded question. I could write a book on it. I doubt that's what you're looking for. What exactly are you looking for?

My question is not exactly "What do you think?" It is about where you place the "edge" between other people's claims here and your feeling about what seems "real." This little interaction with bob b about the afterlife is a vague example, yet 'afterlife' is a huge topic. What, for example, do you think is the precise edge at which an afterlife theory appears unusable to you? Is it the sense of a mythological realm? The theory of a site of soul-judgement? There mere thought of "anything" past death? The idea that there is "something" or the idea, say, that such a 'something" is known by someone presently alive?

That sort of thing...

 

[Vision in Verse]

My question is not exactly "What do you think?" It is about where you place the "edge" between other people's claims here and your feeling about what seems "real." This little interaction with bob b about the afterlife is a vague example, yet 'afterlife' is a huge topic. What, for example, do you think is the precise edge at which an afterlife theory appears unusable to you? Is it the sense of a mythological realm? The theory of a site of soul-judgement? There mere thought of "anything" past death? The idea that there is "something" or the idea, say, that such a 'something" is known by someone presently alive?
That sort of thing...

Afterlife means to me, that your consciousness survives after the destruction of your brain's functions. I don't think this occurs, but it's impossible to prove a universal negative. Just like I can't prove that God doesn't exist, just like I can't prove an afterlife exists, and just like I can't prove my existence in a parallel universe. You can neither prove, not disprove it. So, it's relation towards me, is neutral. Now, the thing I'm interested in, is the people who believe something that cannot be proven. I seek to know why they believe things without proof, and I seek to learn the behavioral consequences of such a belief.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Now, the thing I'm interested in, is the people who believe something that cannot be proven. I seek to know why they believe things without proof, and I seek to learn the behavioral consequences of such a belief.

This, of course, leads into all sorts of discussions about what constitutes a viable proof. One gets quickly into the deep end when comparing, say, someone who has seen an angel vs. someone who takes it on faith that mathematicaly physics are both correct and honest when they claim that black holes exist. And then, of course, both these parties can either be adamant in their feelings or open to the minimal uncertainty that accompanies even the most obvious-seeming facts.

In seeking (a) to know why certain things are believed without proof, and (b) the behavioural consequences, I would suggest that these are stratified into rough levels of complexity, abstraction and (seemingly) sanity. There is a sort of organic spectrum of belief-positions and enacted results. This always leaves open the possibilty (not the necessity) that one's own set of 'obvious facts' and "reasonable conclusions" is a partial version of another type of thinking yet to emerge in ones own case.

Have you drawn any conclusions? What do you think are main types of reasons that a person would "believe without proof"?

 

[Vision in Verse]

Have you drawn any conclusions? What do you think are main types of reasons that a person would "believe without proof"?

Most of the time, the reasoning is very indirect, and has nothing to do with the actual subject. Belief for the sake of believing. It's much more irrational to someone that doesn't know anything to believe the first thing they hear. I call that faith.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Belief for the sake of believing. It's much more irrational to someone that doesn't know anything to believe the first thing they hear. I call that faith.

In a sense one always has to believe the first thing one hears -- since one has heard nothing to the contrary. Children are often in this position. The difficulty seems to arise when they lack some kind of minimal psychological distance from their beliefs. Such a "tiny" detachment comes into play when new data/beliefs arrive. Then one must, so to speak, unbelieve the original, examine the new set of possibilities and then re-beleive a new, higher compromise.

When you say "belief for the sake of believing" -- what do you think is the pleasure associated with belief that would make it be believed for its own sake?

One of the most fascinating things about "believers" of all kinds is the half-hidden distinctions between those who accept that they hold beliefs and those who assert that their beliefs are "certain, facts." That is to say -- unconscious faith and conscious faith.

 

[Vision in Verse]

When you say "belief for the sake of believing" -- what do you think is the pleasure associated with belief that would make it be believed for its own sake?

Belief makes life seem like it was better than what it would seem like otherwise. For instance, Heaven gives people with troubling circumstances a motive to be loving instead of hateful. Functionally, this makes them more agreeable, giving them greater respect in a society. This may or may not improve their circumstances. So, sometimes, this pleasure actually translates into real life success. It's like a well-known sociological concept, "If you believe it to be true, it becomes true." So in this case, something false, has real concequences. Those real concequences progogate the false belief, which progate the real concequences.

 

[noguru]

In a sense one always has to believe the first thing one hears -- since one has heard nothing to the contrary. Children are often in this position. The difficulty seems to arise when they lack some kind of minimal psychological distance from their beliefs. Such a "tiny" detachment comes into play when new data/beliefs arrive. Then one must, so to speak, unbelieve the original, examine the new set of possibilities and then re-beleive a new, higher compromise.

When you say "belief for the sake of believing" -- what do you think is the pleasure associated with belief that would make it be believed for its own sake?

One of the most fascinating things about "believers" of all kinds is the half-hidden distinctions between those who accept that they hold beliefs and those who assert that their beliefs are "certain, facts." That is to say -- unconscious faith and conscious faith.

Did you mean sub-conscious when you said unconscious? Sub-conscious is a better description for the aspect of our minds to which you were referring.

If you pay close attention to the interaction of our conscious and sub-conscious minds you realize that they are interdependant. You can consciously decide to practice or excercise something so much that it becomes part of the sub-conscious. On the other hand sub-conscious ideas and thoughts work their way into our conscious minds through various mechanisms. I suspect that our sub-conscious mind is highly influenced by the some total of our memories. And our conscious mind is in turn influenced by these as well. This half-hidden distinction you speak of, is not half hidden to those who are aware of this interaction between the conscious and sub-conscious mind. But it will remain hidden to those who deny this interrelatedness. This seems to be a common attitude/behavior amongst certain religious persuasions.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Did you mean sub-conscious when you said unconscious? Sub-conscious is a better description for the aspect of our minds to which you were referring.

If you pay close attention to the interaction of our conscious and sub-conscious minds you realize that they are interdependant. You can consciously decide to practice or excercise something so much that it becomes part of the sub-conscious. On the other hand sub-conscious ideas and thoughts work their way into our conscious minds through various mechanisms. I suspect that our sub-conscious mind is highly influenced by the some total of our memories. And our conscious mind is in turn influenced by these as well. This half-hidden distinction you speak of, is not half hidden to those who are aware of this interaction between the conscious and sub-conscious mind. But it will remain hidden to those who deny this interrelatedness. This seems to be a common attitude/behavior amongst certain religious persuasions.

Unconscious is to Subconscious as Water is to Pacific. It is a matter of emphasis either the part imagined to be most specific, or the part imagained to be most expressive of the quality it shares with many other things. Thank you for distinction -- one is also richer when both sides of the same things are arising.

There is a magical curtain in us -- we slip things under it, often for a long time -- but not always, and one day something comes back, comes on its own, operates without us. Now it is the job of the subconscious. On the other hand, one need not have been conscious in the first place in order to receive programming. Heart-beating is nothing something we remembered for a while and then it got taken over -- it was always already unconscious. In fact, even in this conscious moment, we are only vaguely aware that it IS occuring. Certain kinds of belief may be of this sort as well.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Belief makes life seem like it was better than what it would seem like otherwise. For instance, Heaven gives people with troubling circumstances a motive to be loving instead of hateful. Functionally, this makes them more agreeable, giving them greater respect in a society. This may or may not improve their circumstances. So, sometimes, this pleasure actually translates into real life success. It's like a well-known sociological concept, "If you believe it to be true, it becomes true." So in this case, something false, has real concequences. Those real concequences progogate the false belief, which progate the real concequences.

Yes, it was Nietzsche who did the first really brilliant analyses of the these types of systems. Have you read his "Geneology of Morals"? Certain types of belief are not only examples of bio-pathology, but carriers and amplifiers of bio-pathology. Other types of belief encourage the vitalization of the entire organism. And in many cases the one has become the other, over time, and in all cases there have been some people seeming to believe the same things but utilizing those beliefs completely differently.

What beliefs do you think improve life, increase success, improve overall vitality, intelligence, compasion, well-being, etc.? And which, in your observation, do quite the opposite?

 

[Vision in Verse]

What beliefs do you think improve life, increase success, improve overall vitality, intelligence, compasion, well-being, etc.? And which, in your observation, do quite the opposite?

Beliefs that improve life: The belief that a healthy human is supposed to be kind, self-confident, peaceful, loving, and joyful.