It's not every day that I can agree with Pluralist and DavidW at the same time, so when the chance comes, I take it. Who would have thought the topic would be evolution?   ;-)

Pluralist,

Thanks but you have never seen evolution of the species, your idea of how it behaves is derived from the evidence.

What interests me is how God was made flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth. Through Christ lives are changed and people’s joy made complete whether they know anything about the theory of evolution or not, or whether Tiktaalic could in fact have evolved into a tetrapod.

I have no doubt a science forum would be delighted to be dominated by religious and faith discussions ;-)

I am taking my view from the good scientists and the rest, and indeed the contrast that there is between evolution not in doubt and the comparative difficulties in astro-physics still that requires missing aspects or a rewrite - a rewrite of the explanations to fit the observations.

Evolution behaves like a chaotic system because it is locally formed in every case, but in the interactions between species (in competition, in co-operation) it may well have systemic qualities. So, just as weather is chaotic and unpredictable after a short period, climate nevertheless shows stability over longer periods - but then can undergo shifts.

These systems are all self-explaining. What interests me, then, is the language of interpretation and appreciation, and therefore the religious-reflective response. This is how I understand religious humanism, but my pluralist tag is about secondary, non-causal language of appreciation coming out of different religious traditions - so that, for example, if I write liturgical material I will include Krishna opening his mouth and seeing the universe inside.

Bowan,

Yes I agree with your remarks  Monday 25 June 2012 - 05:33pm

Evolution-- an historical account of the development of the forms of life-- is one thing, and the mechanisms that enabled particular changes in those forms are another thing. The extent to which natural selection alone can account for all the changes inferred from the evidence is more debatable than it was before the advent of genomics, epigenetics, etc. and good philosophers and scientists publish well on this topic. However, debates about the mechanisms of evolution leave the inferred history of evolution as plausible as it ever was. Evolution is not in doubt, but it is less simple than once thought.

Of course I use myth in a positive as well as negative sense. I can say, 'that's just a myth' as a knock-down, but talking about religious stories as myths isn't a knock-down because of the value of the stories in them and the ethical and life stories they open up. I use, I indeed write, liturgical material and much of it is about life-orientation. Scientific material is not myth, but if it strays into mythical construction it needs pulling up sharp. What interests me out of science is the language of awe, wonder, smallness, greatness and the intelligence of consciousness that we and maybe other beings have, including of one's own death, and therefore of language and stored knowledge and stories. From language comes a library and the ability to pass it on.

The chances of a universe of stability are quite low, but have to have come about in order to exist, and then to exist in a sufficiently stable part of the universe for long enough, but even against all that the ability of "I" to be I at all is so small that this in itself is remarkable. But beyond all that tiny chance, what we see and have is worthy of wonder.

Pluralist,

The theory of evolution fits the geological evidence, but so does God as a creator. For example, have you ever seen Tiktaalic evolve into a tetrapod? How did Tiktaalic genetically mutate or adapt to an environment it had no experience of? Sure evolution requires faith in something not seen. Your thinking is very ‘tunnel vision’

OK Bowman

I will tell, I was taught about congruency and incongruency and about cosmic and evolution and about many, many things. But i did not go to theology college to learn about Jesus, i already knew jesus, i had already experienced the work of the spirit and Jesus. 

I went to college because i wanted to share what i felt and still feel is a very precious commodity, that was and is "faith" .Now i understood that there were are many perspectives on the cosmic and evolution etc but what none of those inanimate things do is offer relationship.Jesus is about relationship, now eyewitness accounts were also about relationship the it is not incongruent to recognise the connections between the spiritual relationship and the cosmic of the universe, or as you express it the narrative, it is still a way of explaining how we can have co-existance. Eye witness cannot be 100% . But neither can Narrative, for the narrative is a result of eyewitness account and eye witness account relies on many different factors. But we can be 100% sure that the event of the crucifixion and the ressurection happened, because it was observed, it is the "how" which cannot be explained and it is the "how" that is the proof that it was beyond explanation and therefore beyond the cosmic universe or narrative.

But right now , peace be with you!

Angela

OK Bowman

I will tell, I was taught about congruency and incongruency and about cosmic and evolution and about many, many things. But i did not go to theology college to learn about Jesus, i already knew jesus, i had already experienced the work of the spirit and Jesus. 

I went to college because i wanted to share what i felt and still feel is a very precious commodity, that was and is "faith" .Now i understood that there were are many perspectives on the cosmic and evolution etc but what none of those inanimate things do is offer relationship.Jesus is about relationship, now eyewitness accounts were also about relationship the it is not incongruent to recognise the connections between the spiritual relationship and the cosmic of the universe, or as you express it the narrative, it is still a way of explaining how we can have co-existance. Eye witness cannot be 100% . But neither can Narrative, for the narrative is a result of eyewitness account and eye witness account relies on many different factors. But we can be 100% sure that the event of the crucifixion and the ressurection happened, because it was observed, it is the "how" which cannot be explained and it is the "how" that is the proof that it was beyond explanation and therefore beyond the cosmic universe or narrative.

Do you think, it might be a leap too far to say that, because something is not 100% eyewitness that it is mythical or set on mythical beliefs?

Blessings Angela-- As you probably recall from your university study in theology (If not, I'm surprised. Do tell...), in a religious context, "myth" is the narrative expression of an idea about the cosmos. Stories that have no intersubjective cosmic meaning are not myths, no matter how "true" or "false" they are thought to be in other terms. Conversely, stories that do have intersubjective cosmic meaning are myths whether they correspond to something intersubjectively defined as "fact" or not. HInduism, for example, has myriad myths that millions consider to be true, whilst recognising that they do not correspond to any intersubjectively defined "facticity." Describing the birth of Krisna as a myth is an acknowledgement that, for Vaisnava Hindus, the story of it says something about the cosmos. The usage of the bigoted and unsophisticated differs, of course, but to call something a "myth" in a religious context is merely to assert that what it expresses is cosmic for those who believe it. The word is too useful to waste on insults, and interesting minds generally see that these days.

Topsy-turvy as this may seem to some villagers, it is possible to be gravely concerned that a putatively Christian statement fails to treat what it mentions as myth (i.e. fails to see cosmic importance in important scriptural narrative).

I haven't noticed Pluralist's actual usage-- busy lately-- but, given his own views, presume that he is familiar with the non-pejorative understanding of the word.

Let's look at evolution. The work done on what Darwin didn't know is underlining the solidity of the Darwinian scheme and indeed what we did not know a little while ago gets reinforced. For example, it was thought that there were many examples of the evolution of the eye, and the eye exists in creatures at every operating stage from light cell to as we have. But the existence of particular genetic switches have shown that the eye has evolved just once. That evolution is incredibly powerful, and it does not get more scientific than that. Because now it really is all linked down one tree to the simplest of creatures.

This does not require faith. It requires simply deduction, argument, ongoing proof. Yes, all science can be overturned by better explanations, but the test is everything (and not just observation - where old Aristotle made his mistake).

All the matter of 'God' is faith, it is all cultural and it is all transient. People who eyewitness see what they see within a context of explanation, and that explanation comes in culture.

You give it away when you refer to Abraham. There is no demonstrable evidence of any kind that an Abraham existed, so that which is written is pure myth. Or, if you take Moses, well 'someone like Moses' may have existed, but such is lost in the fog of time and story.

The issue for me is not a God that exists or acts, but about transcendence - if there is any sense in which the higher qualities of all that is have a transcendent value that implies some sort of connection. If not, then it is a good idea, but only a human reflection and aspiration. The interesting stuff is our own self-consciousness and how that 'exists', which is largely mystery even to science. For example, does consciousness have a quantum aspect to it, and if it does how does that have any 'continuance' beyond the body? I doubt that, but it must be a possibility, even if fleeting.

I do not think anything has been created with intent. Intelligence is something that comes late in evolution, not early, and it does not take intelligence to produce intelligence. But again, what is interesting is how simple numbers with virtual numbers in a repeating equation can produce the most complex of shapes, and there is beauty in equations (thus the question about transcendence).

The world as we have it is fascinating enough to evoke a religious response, but it is not one directed by some dogma but rather in the questions that the world as it is throws up, principally that of pointers to the transcendent - in what points, in the wonder. And it is amazing to be alive and self-reflect in such a vast universe and that is enough wonder for me.

Pluralist Hi

Do you think, it might be a leap to far to say that, because something is not 100% eyewitness that it is mythical or set on mythical beliefs. I think i am understanding  you in  so far as the culture of the time was myth versus real spirituality , by real i mean that spirituality was represented by a living man , that being the man of Jesus.

In some ways it must have done more to dispell myth, the old testament gave us a vision, it was a vision clearly explained ie "i will send you a saviour"(isaiah). But it was also misunderstood. Abraham and others for instance had audable instructions, some  had bright lights, and there were clear events which indicated God was communicating , So eye witness accounts were very much part of the Bible before the disciples.

Were myths really not a way of explaining eye witness. I do not see it as chicken and egg. As you say many scholars have studied these issues, and it cannot be proven as to exact details of each intervention from God into a persons life in what ever form that took. It cannot be proven that we are a result of evolution either. What can be proved is the eyewitness to Gods living creations, of which you and i pluralist are part. (imagine that we are related in Gods kingdom lol) you know what they say you can choose your friends but not your relatives if we are all related under the kingdom then there aint much choice is there lol. Anyway i digress. I think you will get what I am saying eyewitness is a sort of continuous state, where myths tend to be inanimate and historical.

Angela