From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 14:39:41 EDT
In a message dated 9/26/03 9:20:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
steve@spetermann.org writes:
> Granted the Darwinians have the edge because of past validation in simple
> organisms, until it can do the hard science and describe a plausible
> evolutionary path to some complex systems, it can't make a firm assertion at
> completeness.
>
>
No one can make a "firm assertion at completeness" - and it is these kinds of
open ended and poorly defined phrases that mar your remarks and make them
unintelligible.
Until you've read MacDonald on Judaism you cannot make any definitive
statements about Darwinian evolution and religion.
The preview on the inside cover of Darwin’s Cathedral reads: “One of the
great intellectual battles of modern times is between evolution and religion.
Until now, they’ve been considered completely irreconcilable theories of
origin and existence.David Sloan Wilson’s Darwin’s Cathedral takes the radical
step of joining the two, in the process proposing an evolutionary theory of
religion that shakes both evolutionary biology and social theory at their
foundations.The key, argues Wilson, is to think of society as an organism, an old idea
that has received new life based on recent developments in evolutionary
biology. If society is an organism can we then think of morality and religion as
biologically and culturally evolved adaptations that enable human groups to
function as single units rather than mere collections of individuals?” David Sloan
Wilson says we can. In his introduction, titled Church as Organism, Wilson
writes, “The purpose of this book is to treat the organismic concept of
religious groups as a serious scientific hypothesis....”1
From the review:
Wilson is resurrecting the organismic concept of religious groups, but in
this particular instance, his case is woefully understated.Though he has cited
the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald four times,he gives no indication
that MacDonald in three volumes has brilliantly elucidated the evolutionary
strategy of Judaism. Unfortunately, just as the organismic concept of religious
groups, functionalism and Lansing’s work on the temple system of Bali have all
suffered from the demise of group selection; MacDonald’s prodigious effort
has not received the public accolades it so richly deserves. Suffice it to say
that this American professor, in true American style, has leveled the playing
field by providing equal opportunity strategizing for all. A former tribal
possession is rendered comprehensible and accessible to all the peoples of the
world. Do you remember Wilson’s prediction? If human groups “can be rigorously
shown to function as adaptive units, that will be a major scientific
accomplishment…”48
It has already been done.
Once human groups were shown to function as adaptive units, and IQ
differntials between Jewish and non-Jewish populations were dicovered, the point became
moot. The higher IQ mean is a result of higher selection stresses coming from
- that's right - religious motivation impacting the genotype. darwinian
evolution is not only validated, it is religiously validated.
No need to respond.
rich faussette
other remarks I made in response to a few of steve's musings that were in
error.
> That should be enough. I know it sounds like I'm just trying to be
> obnoxious but that's not it at all. It was around this very issue that I
> came to reject the "concrete" idea of the Christ. That does not, however,
> mean I reject the symbol of the incarnation, cross and resurrection. Can
> Christianity survive without a concrete Christ?
>
> Steve Petermann
>
>
This is a non-issue - see logic below. The question can Christianity
survive without a concrete Christ? requires clarification. What is meant by
"concrete?"
There is one salvific scheme 'period' if indeed you are talking about the
self sacrifice. If you're not talking about the self sacrifice, you're not
talking about religion anyway.
The ontology of the self sacrifice is a redemption available to any self
conscious life form with free will. That's not a metaphor. It's in the vedas,
Buddhism, the OT and the NT
rich faussette
> So when does free will in one of the life forms occur?
>
> Steve Petermann
>
>
>
>
When self conscious decisions are made.
Paper available upon request
rich faussette
> Can
> there only be one Christ per planet? Do you see how ridiculous this line of
> thinking becomes?
>
> In the past religions could avoid these types of thought experiments but I
> don't thing they can now. If a theology is supposed to be systematic, it
> cannot avoid addressing these types of questions if it is to be considered
> serious.
>
> Steve Petermann
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's hard to take Steve seriously. His fragility is based on a
supposition. That when metaphysics is trashed the religion goes with it, the baby with
the bath water. Ontology is the state of being, and an ontology on alpha
centauri is ontology just the same. Jesus Christ made a demonstration of his life
an ontological demonstration. If such an act were to be perpretrated
elsewhere, let's simply hope there would be aspostles around to recognize it for what
it was and spread the word to those heathens among the stars.
With all the studies being done on religion, like Wilson's or Burkett's or
MacDonald's or Colinvaux's you'd think that anyone holding a position contrary
to a religious one would stop attacking the metaphysics and delve into the
religion from a scientific perspective.
when you watch star trek and kirk says - the one for the many, the many for
the one - that's the self sacrifice - that's religion.
rich faussette
steve@spetermann.org writes:
> The crux for Christianity in these reasonable thought experiments is, if
> Jesus is the universal, one time only, unique event for the salvation of the
> universe are we to expect the possibly millions, or trillions of other life
> forms to accept an earthly human as their savior? Does this sound
> reasonable or must we rethink Christology in more metaphoric terms?
>
>
The ontology of the self sacrifice is a redemption available to any self
conscious life form that displays free will. That's not a metaphor.
steve@spetermann.org writes:
> You presume too much. I attended the same seminary as George Murphy. My
> mentor in Christian theology was Paul Tillich. My motives are varied but one
> is not to <shake up the christians>. I have a great affinity for
> Christianity. I just think it must change in order to be viable for the
> future. The best way to refine one's own position is to meet the challenge
> of opposing views. One doesn't grow arguing with the choir.
>
>
>
I presume nothing.Your argument regarding ETs is ontologically irrelevant
since any sentient being is subject to ontology. Tillich's The Courage to Be was
my intro to ontology but that doesn't help or hurt my arguments, nor does his
mentoring you help or hurt yours, although in this specific case, you've
shortchanged ontology by mistakenly limiting ontology to human beings rather than
sentient beings. Human beings only "fell" when they developed free will and
loosened the bonds of instinct. Any sentient being undergoing the same process
has to be phenotypically 'redeemed' via right behavior since developing free
will is also the very development of the ability to err or "sin."
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 14:40:16 EDT