On Mar 2, 2009, at 11:36:39 AM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: [Willblake2 wrotes:] Hmmm... This faith in evolution sounds awfully dogmatic (in a religious sense). Let me ask you this, have you personally experienced or witnessed this ghost of evolution? Many Christians personally experience the existence of a god, is this the same thing you are describing? Or is your belief based on the scientific scriptures and teachings of those who claim to have witnessed it? You don't need to answer that, I'm just rattling your cage. I think that evolution is a pretty cool vision, although I do not use it in my everyday life. I'm not conspiracy minded about science or religion, but check this out:
[Krimel] Unlike dmb I am happy to admit that adoption of Platt's underlying "isms" is an article of "faith" with me but the Theory of Evolution is not at all like that. One can accept those assumptions of science, I would say any sensible person probably does accept those assumptions, without buying into any particular product of scientific inquiry. I have seen and experienced a wide variety of examples of evolution in action and it was nothing like an experience of the divine. I have seen, for example, the average height of NBA players increase in response to the contingencies of the game. I live in a state where every kind of obnoxious critter can survive and I have seen green chameleons replaced by several species of really ugly brown lizards. I have seen the distribution of traits in urban dandelions favor those which blossom closer to the ground in response to the evolutionary pressures of lawn mowers. I have seen the microwaves virtually replace toaster ovens. CDs, replaced tape. Stereo replaced mono and is being replaced by surround sound. Color replaced black and white. MS-DOS replaced CPM. Hopefully at last I am seeing progressive political ideas replace failed doctrines of laisse faire. So my cage isn't rattled in the least because I do use it in my everyday life. [Willblake2] It is accepted historically that in the fourth century AD, the emperor Constantine held the Council of Nicea, to consolidate the Christian belief system (and consolidate his own power). This council was composed of about 300 politicians, or religious leaders if you will. Of the many writings on the teachings of Jesus, only 27 books were finally chosen to represent the New Testament. Other instructional books such as the Didache were considered not authoritative. The rigorous destruction and non-acceptance of contrary evidence seems to have resulted in the consolidation of the illusion that the Church was the only source of such teachings, making the central church indispensable for salvation. This, as desired, made the Church the most powerful institution in Western history (I guess evolution was at play, here). The creation of illusions such as this can be very powerful and lasting, and should not be dismissed. The religion of Evolution through the church of science could (has) result(ed) in defining our moral values in much the same way. [Krimel] I am not at all sure what your point is here. If what you are pointing to is certain selection pressure that led to the adoption of the Christian cannon, well OK. If you are just changing the subject, that's OK too. But you are missing a few pieces even here. Prior to the Council of Nicea the cannon was not exactly closed but not really open either. There are a couple of "lists" of canonical works that predate the Council by at least a 100 years and as you point out there are a few works on those lists that were omitted for doctrinal reasons. But there were a number of Christian writing circulating at the time that were never considered to be canonical by much of anyone.. In fact the whole idea of a cannon arose in response to the heretic Marcion who specified the first Christian cannon. It included the writings of Paul and Luke. He was a Gnostic, who in the Platonic tradition viewed the perceptual world as dirty and evil. He therefore rejected the Jewish writing and much of the other literature that was growing in early Christian circles. The canonical lists mentioned above were created in response to Marcion's "bible". With regard to Constantine's need to "consolidate" his power; Roman emperors really already had their power consolidated. They didn't need to go to all that much trouble to maintain it. As for the church leaders in attendance they were in the odd position of taking a system of beliefs that had arisen in response to oppression and turning it into a system of power and administration. Their aim was to resolve a number of doctrinal disputes that stood in the way of this consolation of their power. And you are quite right their motives and decisions do seem to result more from political that theological considerations. So, again I really don't see what your point is but I would say that the Council of Nicea is a good example of the evolution and shaping of a set of religious ideas (memes)in responses to the intellectual environment of the 3rd century. If you think the science has some doctrinal body squashing heretical views you just really haven't been paying attention. But you have done nothing here it lessen my suspicion that you are not being entirely forthcoming with us. I seriously cannot imagine that someone, who has taken even one college class in biology, would have such a shallow understanding of the principles that underlie that discipline. Your degree wouldn't happen to be from Liberty University would it? Willblake2 writes to that above: Thanks for that Krimel, I'm sure I could learn a lot from you about Christian history. However, you point out: [Krimel above]"Prior to the Council of Nicea the cannon was not exactly closed but not really open either. There are a couple of "lists" of canonical works that predate the Council by at least a 100 years and as you point out there are a few works on those lists that were omitted for doctrinal reasons." It is my understanding that many more than just a few works were left out, especially in light of the discovery at Nag Hammadi (which the Church also tried to control). This may only be scratching the surface of where Christianity had got in those 300 years. Original Christianity may have been much more mystical and encompassing, no man in the sky etc. What exists now is something pretty childish. My point on the analogy with Christianity is that science creates a reality in the same way, and in my experience it is difficult to express contrary ideas to the norm. Science can label things ad infinitum and then profess meaning from that. We have divided the sun up into labels on "how it works, and what it is made of, etc." and then claim to "understand" it; this is the same thing as dividing a painting (or music) into its parts and then claiming to understand it. Indeed, it may be much more meaningful and useful to view the sun as Egyptians of old did. Thanks for answering about "experiencing" evolution. My interpretation of what I read from your post is that what you see is created for you through the doctrinal prism of Evolution, that is fitting it into a box. For example, I can understand "Quality" through reading the opinions in the posts at MoQ. However, I do not experience it in the same way as Phaedrus is portrayed to do in Pirsig's books. If you have faith in the survival concept of Evolution then you will surely interpret the world in that way, in exactly the same way a Christian will interpret his reality as the Will of God. Your evidence is no more than his, and basing yours on the doctrine of science is simply a closed system proving itself, like a snake eating its own tail. Look at evolution from outside this bias for a clearer view. Oh, and you may be overestimating what experiencing the Divine is, I think you experience it everyday. By the way, for what its worth, I got my Ph.D from the Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine in London (once a part of the University of London). According to a recent peer review from a wide range of universities it is considered to be one of the top ten universities in the world (along with Yale, CalTech, Cambridge, Oxford, and others). Check it out in the London Times (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=243&pubCode=1). Don't know if this lends credibility to my opinions, it shouldn't. Cheers, Willblake2 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
