Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion Subject: Re: Evolving Religions Message-ID: <434@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 00:18:28 EDT Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.434 Posted: Thu Jun 6 00:18:28 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 05:21:40 EDT References: <236@ihnet.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Lines: 86 Xref: watmath net.origins:1656 net.religion:7059 Amazing the things you learn here. Karl Dahlke says: > Religions, the primary antithesis of naturalism and scientific thought, are > themselves subject to the very processes they reject. Ironic, isn't it? Wow! And I thought the numerous references to the process of natural evolution in my religion's holy books were in some way evidence that religion doesn't reject evolution! I though the emphasis on skepticism, and on producing repeatable effects, was in some way compatible with the scientific method! Silly me! Seriously, Karl, you've obviously bought the usual false choice between dogmatism or atheism that is so prevalent in this society. Don't feel bad, I was there for several years myself. The point is that you should study a wider range of religions before you make this kind of generalization. > Even more interesting, I believe, is religious macro evolution. The > earliest religions used idols and graven images, but these (primarily) did > not last. Why not? A neighboring tribe can always steal your idol, or > distroy it. The builder of the idol cannot believe in its deity for long. > As technology advances, idols, rocks, and trees, are no longer mysterious. I hope I never reach a stage where I cannot see the deity and mystery of rocks, trees, and works of art ("idols"). That would be a very drab and limited world indeed! > The next class of religions involved "unexplainable" events. A neighboring > tribe cannot steal or distroy the sun. The stars must surely form a perfect > Ptolemaic universe, praise God. The Greek Gods conveniently explained the > weather, astronomical events, etc. Unfortunately, science reared its ugly > head again, describing elliptical orbits and rainbows with remarkable > precision. A common enough statement, but not supported by evidence. A member of a "primitive" religion of this sort does not think "It is thundering outside because Daddy Thunder is throwing bolts of lightning", but identifies the thundering with the deity. Conceptually this is quite different. It is a conception that each thing in the human sensorium partakes in some way of divine nature. Of course, there do exist systems of weather prediction and influence, medicine, and so on, that are based on pantheonic conceptions, but these never held the central position in religions that modern atheistic thought would like us to believe. The reason this is such a popular conception is because most atheists would prefer that science be considered to supercede religion. To this end, they pretend that religions did nothing more than what science does today, and did it wrong. A good example is alchemy, a meditative/ritual discipline that modern scientists seem to think was a primitive form of chemistry. In part, it was that, but that no more expresses the wholeness of alchemy than a description of computer science as "how to add lists of figures" expresses the wholeness of that field. In short, it is a self-serving reductionism that you put forth. > Of course, there is more to evolution than survival. The religion must > reproduce. In other words, you must convert people, especially the next > generation. It is therefore not surprising to see extreme intolerance, and > strong missionary doctrines in the surviving religions. Mark 16 15 Until > recently, any conversion tactic was acceptable anywhere, leading inevitably > to the Spanish inquisition, the crusades, the tribal wars described so > vividly in the old testament, etc. Finally I agree with you. Still, atheism is hardly exempt from this criticism, though it has rarely achieved the excesses of all the monotheistic religions. Your message itself could be considered an attempt to convert, you know, as could the reductionist models you are parroting. > Clearly, micro evolution will continue to mold today's religions, but can we > expect any substantial changes in the next 2,000 years? One possible > selecting force is education. As more people are exposed to biology, > biochemistry, astronomy, and especially history, a loving, omnipotent, > omniscient, omnipresent God becomes harder to swallow. Indeed, Godel may > have dealt such a being a death blow already. Actually, I consider Godel's work the death knell for absolute rationalism, not religion. Please explain. In any case, you should be aware that many religions do not require belief in a sentience that created the universe. My own feeling is that from certain perspectives large and complex systems such as ecosystems, galaxies, and universes can be considered sentient no less than small and complex systems like the human nervous system. They can also be considered non-sentient from other perspectives. It's not really that important an issue, though it can be mind-bending and is therefore a fun one to consider from time to time. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"