Does Belief In Evolution Automatically Mean There Is No Soul?

[Antlerman]

 

It's funny you mention this as my boss at work is moving to France in a couple months to live out in the country with his girlfriend for the exact reason you stated. I kidded with him, "Take me with you!"

 

I'm going to Thailand for a month or two, where I'll be working with my laptop on the beach, probably next week.

Let me tell you, I got to work like this this last summer for a week or so. I was sitting under a shade tree with my laptop, and when I needed a 10 minute break I walked down to water's edge and went for a swim, floating on my back, sun beating down on my face, breeze blowing over my skin. Hmmm.... what was this you said to me before about being self-employed?? Hmmm... reconsidering my options here.....

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I think I'm actually one tiny step closer to understanding you. And perhaps for many, such a form of spirituality is worth perusing.

Hey! Wonderful. Communication.

 

I think the difficulty is I'm always pushing against the borders of myself, and the further I go there, of necessity the language become as Don says, "esoteric". With where I'm at in this I've come to be able to see it everywhere in our ways of talking about the world. Maybe I really should write a book or at least a blog and try to lay this all out better.

 

For me though, its allowing me to pick up that baby that was in the bathwater and bringing into a space that allows my mind to embrace it with no violation, and grow it to where I feel drawn to. As I look at Christianity, in the forms we're most familiar with, it really is like the language and thinking of children, not that that means everyone in it is that way, but as I said, those we are most intimately familiar with. You just feel like wanting to help them grow up, if you're not busy having to deal with their neighborhood antics as bully children vandalizing your yard.

[par4dcourse]

Antlerman, I think I'm actually one tiny step closer to understanding you. And perhaps for many, such a form of spirituality is worth perusing.

 

I second that. Life is dull without alternate views.

 

 

 

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I think I'm actually one tiny step closer to understanding you. And perhaps for many, such a form of spirituality is worth perusing.

 

I second that. Life is dull without alternate views.

I'm just feeling all sorts of big warm fuzzies right now. group hug!!!!

[mwc]

It's a response to wanting Answers with a capital A in the failure of the myth systems of the Church to provide that any longer. But that pursuit and exploration into that 'inner dimension' is by nature quite subjective.

 

I just finished reading a simple but well written book by Elaine Pagels on The Gnostic Gospels, where she gives a nice overview of the role that the Gnostic element of early Christianity played in the formation of what become Orthodox Christianity. The Gnostics were about finding inner truth, and not being told by a bishop what is truth. They were very much mystics in their rights, some were pretty out there, others, like the Valentian Gnostics, I would very much say got things "right", as far as that goes using their symbolism and myths. But that sort of pursuit was was too "fuzzy" in order to create a system of religion that your average person could be part of. So they dumbed it down to performing the rites of baptism and reciting creeds in order for someone to be called a Christian.

But, um, why would they write the Gospel of Truth if they didn't want any sort of authority and just have people sort of finding their own way? Seems writing things down all proper kind of establishes this whole concept of right thinking since the gospel sort of lays out the hows and whys pretty well. I don't need to rely on my inner anything for the basic structure. But if the story is true then we shouldn't expect much from someone who was supposed to be an orthodox bishop I guess.

 

As for who could be "called a Christian." According to orthodox xians the term was rather loosely applied so orthodox and heterodox alike were "Christians." Followers of Simon Magus were called "Christians" and they were full-on heretics since they considered him to be many types of "evil" (up to and including pretending to be a god or having the ability to work special magic thanks to demons). "Christians" all. No one had to make "special" concessions to get into this club other than the theological requirements which are vague to us but not so much to them. It does seem to revolve around a "christ" but not really a "jesus" so that's not much to go on. Look at Theophilus of Antioch who defines it roughly as "being anointed of the oil of god" (he writes a paragraph on it but this is the sum of it).

 

Anyhow, just thought I'd rain on this parade as I tend to do. I get the gist of it. But muddying the waters of the concept isn't my idea of really making something better. It's just a way of saying people can pursue whatever the hell they call "spirit" and who the hell are we to disagree? They might be right after all. May as well call it "gripzorp" and pursue that. It's all the same when we reduce things to this level of abstract. The first person to actually accomplish anything "wins" as it were (even though there's no winning of course). So "spirit" or "gripzorp" or "blaflu," whatever floats your boat, in that little area of life. But by conflating all these terms, my little imaginary ones, into "spirit" or "soul" the term loses any meaning it might possibly have. It's a garbage bin for this unknown crap. Music makes you feel "spiritual?" Good enough. How about jerking off? Same thing. Toss it in there. All the same. How about bashing in skulls. Sure. Why not? And the ancients? Surely we can project this back onto them? Of course. Why? It makes me feel good spiritually in the here and now. So let's do it. There we go. Now the word means? Nothing. It's a shit word. So how to discuss it? We can't. It's like the ocean apparently. It means whatever anyone wants it to mean...so it means nothing.

 

mwc

[Legion]

I don't know. In keeping with the spirit of this forum ( ) I think that causality must be rich enough to support self-sustaining, cooperative organizations. If not, then life would not be possible and neither would things we see in ecosystems like symbiosis. Now let an imaginative mind contemplate this, and causality itself could fairly easily be viewed as having a spiritual aspect in my estimation.

 

My main disagreement with A-man seems to be this... I view science as an effort to understand natural systems. This understanding consists of a relation between language and the subjective mind on one hand, and causality and the objective world on the other. A-man seems to think that understanding of one's self (from inside, so to speak) qualifies as science.

[Antlerman]

It's a response to wanting Answers with a capital A in the failure of the myth systems of the Church to provide that any longer. But that pursuit and exploration into that 'inner dimension' is by nature quite subjective.

 

I just finished reading a simple but well written book by Elaine Pagels on The Gnostic Gospels, where she gives a nice overview of the role that the Gnostic element of early Christianity played in the formation of what become Orthodox Christianity. The Gnostics were about finding inner truth, and not being told by a bishop what is truth. They were very much mystics in their rights, some were pretty out there, others, like the Valentian Gnostics, I would very much say got things "right", as far as that goes using their symbolism and myths. But that sort of pursuit was was too "fuzzy" in order to create a system of religion that your average person could be part of. So they dumbed it down to performing the rites of baptism and reciting creeds in order for someone to be called a Christian.

But, um, why would they write the Gospel of Truth if they didn't want any sort of authority and just have people sort of finding their own way?

There is a difference between guidance through illumination, and 'authority' over doctrine. The goal was the end result, not the means. Not so with the orthodox. There a lots of reasons why gospels and other myths were created, and why there was such pruning out of some versus others. The myth of apostolic succession was the myth of the orthodox. The Gnostics said that gnosis superseded the authority of anyone.

 

Seems writing things down all proper kind of establishes this whole concept of right thinking since the gospel sort of lays out the hows and whys pretty well.

Not really. Myth creation was to support an idea or a belief through stories. It was a vehicle to communicate. That the later Orthodox in their creation of the myth of apostolic succession were the one who created that view that those writing were authoritative. But that's not the purpose for the writings, to be Authoritative.

 

I don't need to rely on my inner anything for the basic structure.

According to the Gnostics, they did have structure, but gnosis did not come from structure.

 

But if the story is true then we shouldn't expect much from someone who was supposed to be an orthodox bishop I guess.

This appears to have been the complaint of the Gnostics against the bishops, calling them "waterless canals". I like that term.

 

As for who could be "called a Christian." According to orthodox xians the term was rather loosely applied so orthodox and heterodox alike were "Christians." Followers of Simon Magus were called "Christians" and they were full-on heretics since they considered him to be many types of "evil" (up to and including pretending to be a god or having the ability to work special magic thanks to demons). "Christians" all.

Valentinian Gnostics were also part of the church body, but considered that enlightenment trumped the bishops who just tended to the masses. They were much more difficult for the early church fathers of orthodoxy to deal with, and hence why the creation of all their creeds Christians had to swear by in order to weed out this way of thought that removed power from them. Orthodoxy was formed in a battle over ideas, and its accompanying myths such as Apostolic Authority.

 

Anyhow, just thought I'd rain on this parade as I tend to do. I get the gist of it. But muddying the waters of the concept isn't my idea of really making something better. It's just a way of saying people can pursue whatever the hell they call "spirit" and who the hell are we to disagree?

I think the view that "anything goes" is a misnomer. From what little I know at this point, the Gnostics held up the saying of Jesus in Luke that "By their fruits you shall know them". That is the standard. I think that holds true in any tradition that seeks enlightenment. You are correct in a sense that people can choose whatever means works for them to attain that end goal. This in essence is the failure of orthodoxy to allow for that.

 

(continued...)

[Antlerman]

(continued....)

 

 

They might be right after all. May as well call it "gripzorp" and pursue that. It's all the same when we reduce things to this level of abstract.

The difference is it's not conceptual abstractions, but experiential, with tangible results. Metaphysics are descriptive, but not the substance of it.

 

The first person to actually accomplish anything "wins" as it were (even though there's no winning of course). So "spirit" or "gripzorp" or "blaflu," whatever floats your boat, in that little area of life.

Wins what? The Authority of doctrine or belief, the new Orthodoxy? And I would hardly say that it is in a "little area of life". Rather it is all encompassing to the totality of the individual's life. It's not like some recreational high.

 

But by conflating all these terms, my little imaginary ones, into "spirit" or "soul" the term loses any meaning it might possibly have.

If all it is is metaphysics, than yes. It's meaningless. But if the terms are descriptive language of experience, then it's not meaningless.

 

It's a garbage bin for this unknown crap. Music makes you feel "spiritual?" Good enough. How about jerking off? Same thing.

No it's not. (Unless it's part of some sort of trantric pratice however). Again, there are experiential differences, and qualifiers such as "better" or "higher" are pretty universal in those who experience these things and their differences. How they talk about it, how they describe it, will vary, but for instance, to love is considered as "better" experience than to hate.

 

And the ancients? Surely we can project this back onto them? Of course. Why? It makes me feel good spiritually in the here and now. So let's do it. There we go. Now the word means? Nothing. It's a shit word. So how to discuss it? We can't. It's like the ocean apparently. It means whatever anyone wants it to mean...so it means nothing.

 

mwc

It's not a meaningless term, and it describes figuratively fairly well. Again, if all you have is theory, then you are correct, it's meaningless. Kant was right about the death of metaphysics in that way.

[Antlerman]

My main disagreement with A-man seems to be this... I view science as an effort to understand natural systems. This understanding consists of a relation between language and the subjective mind on one hand, and causality and the objective world on the other. A-man seems to think that understanding of one's self (from inside, so to speak) qualifies as science.

 

 

 

What seems to you, is what seems to you, and that makes a bit of a point. I gather from this that you don't understand what I think. Care to qualify how it seems this way to you?

 

Just a thought for you, if you understand that the subjective plays a part in understanding the objective world (and consequently ones experience of and interaction with this objective world), then how does understanding the nature ones subjective self not play a part of this?? Would you say that it is just logic and a set of signs about the world that informs us of reality? Or would you agree that as thought matures, for one example, so does understanding, and so does response follow as well. I'm really a bit at a loss as to your thoughts here.

 

But hey, if you want to talk about the subjective as not-science, then you should start a topic denying psychology, sociology, or anthropology as doing "real" science. Snob.

[Vigile]

Just a thought for you, if you understand that the subjective plays a part in understanding the objective world (and consequently ones experience of and interaction with this objective world), then how does understanding the nature ones subjective self not play a part of this??

 

I'm going to take a swag. The subjective can't be quantified, and as a result, stands outside scientific reach. I would think this would/could be addressed under the field of psychology though.

[mwc]

There is a difference between guidance through illumination, and 'authority' over doctrine. The goal was the end result, not the means. Not so with the orthodox. There a lots of reasons why gospels and other myths were created, and why there was such pruning out of some versus others. The myth of apostolic succession was the myth of the orthodox. The Gnostics said that gnosis superseded the authority of anyone.

What now? Plenty of gnostic texts have ties to apostles. This wouldn't be done just for the hell of it. Look at the Gospel of Judas. Why bother if you don't want to have some sort of authority through the apostle Judas? Same with Thomas. Same with Mary. Same with <name>. Gnostics played the same games as everyone else just in a slightly different way that best suited their needs. If knowledge was all that was important then I would tend to think the gnostic groups could have easily came together under one tent but they didn't manage to do that. They had differences that kept them apart. Apparently something more than gnosis played a role.

 

Do you think the gnostics considered themselves to be wrong thinking? Or do you think they thought they were right thinking? How might that effect the use of the term orthodox? Because if everyone is orthodox then it's all going to become relative.

 

Not really. Myth creation was to support an idea or a belief through stories. It was a vehicle to communicate. That the later Orthodox in their creation of the myth of apostolic succession were the one who created that view that those writing were authoritative. But that's not the purpose for the writings, to be Authoritative.

So the "later orthodox" created apostolic succession? I'm assuming this refers to the Roman church? And Peter (and maybe Paul)? Yes? I'm not sure what "later" means. Later than what or when?

 

It does seem to me that if you write something that tells members of a sect how things work within your sect then that's the authority view for your sect. If it says "And god is a giant mushroom" then that's sort of the authoritative view on that whether it manages to spread beyond your sect or not. If it says "God wants you to do decide things for yourself based on these criteria" then that also lays out an authoritative view since no one came to those criteria themselves. Even "God says you're on your own" is authoritative in this context because if you decide through your own means that "God will help" that's counter to the other message. Only "To each their own though some might find theirs is the same as others" might be okay as a general rule but it's still an authoritative rule vague as it is.

 

According to the Gnostics, they did have structure, but gnosis did not come from structure.

It came from? Where did they learn to acquire this gnosis? Certainly you're not suggesting they just somehow "knew" how to do this according to their sect? Much like the tongues of fire on Pentecost? It just came upon them suddenly then...gnosis? Or was their a cause for this effect?

 

This appears to have been the complaint of the Gnostics against the bishops, calling them "waterless canals". I like that term.

Any funny, ironic, how that complaint was made don't you think?

"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."

The very words of "jesus." Quite the authority figure. And who relates these words on his behalf? It comes from the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter. Why, Peter, he's one of those apostles, isn't he? Another authority figure. It's sort of like this text, and the sect that used it, had Peter, and "jesus" by extension, as their founder. I'm not saying "apostolic succession" but I'm saying apostolic succession.

 

Lots of these gnostic sects had texts with little Q&A with apostles and "jesus" to get all those nagging questions answered that "jesus" simply "forgot" to take care of in the gospels. Good thing he managed to show up in these texts (in any number of ways) and get them handled. It's not like people wanted an authoritative answer...but they did.

 

Valentinian Gnostics were also part of the church body, but considered that enlightenment trumped the bishops who just tended to the masses. They were much more difficult for the early church fathers of orthodoxy to deal with, and hence why the creation of all their creeds Christians had to swear by in order to weed out this way of thought that removed power from them. Orthodoxy was formed in a battle over ideas, and its accompanying myths such as Apostolic Authority.

Who are these "church fathers of the orthodoxy" exactly? The church fathers were a bunch of guys that are best defined after the fact. They lived far apart in time/space for the most part. The creeds were basically written in the 4th century so we're all over the place with people and ideas. Look at your laws from around the late Roman/early dark ages. They expressly forbade people from Judaism and the language suggest that people were choosing it over xianity. The perceived power of this group of "orthodox" anyone to do much of anything on their own is way overblown. They couldn't do anything to other sects. They held no power in and of themselves.

 

 

I think the view that "anything goes" is a misnomer. From what little I know at this point, the Gnostics held up the saying of Jesus in Luke that "By their fruits you shall know them". That is the standard. I think that holds true in any tradition that seeks enlightenment. You are correct in a sense that people can choose whatever means works for them to attain that end goal. This in essence is the failure of orthodoxy to allow for that.

I couldn't say. I don't view the gnostics as a type of monolithic group so I don't know if they held this saying as some common standard or not. Even the "orthodoxy" once you read their writings aren't that monolithic in many things they tend to say until late in the time line (the 2nd century is all over the place).

 

mwc

[mwc]

(continued....)

 

 

The difference is it's not conceptual abstractions, but experiential, with tangible results. Metaphysics are descriptive, but not the substance of it.

So you have experience with the "spirit?" This means that if I take any number of people that claim the same thing you will all be on the same page? Or will I get a number of different uses for this "spirit?" Sometimes relating to some supernatural thing, a metaphysical thing, an emotional thing and so on. The "spirit" taking on the characteristics of what the individual wants/needs/desires it to take.

 

Wins what? The Authority of doctrine or belief, the new Orthodoxy? And I would hardly say that it is in a "little area of life".

They win the right to be correct. To have demonstrated that their version of "spirit" (whatever name they called it) was a "thing" beyond some abstract concept that people referred to when they lacked another word or another way to express themselves (or were simply being poetic).

 

Rather it is all encompassing to the totality of the individual's life. It's not like some recreational high.

And yet it's not. Assertions work both ways.

 

I listened to some music. It stirred my soul. It moved my spirit. Or did it? I got emotional. I felt some emotions. Right up there in my head. But my entire body had the experience thanks to the chemicals my brain pumped out. Good old brain. Always doing things like that for my body. It was a recreational high.

 

I saw a movie. A painting. A person, place or thing. It doesn't matter. I live in a constant state of bliss...or not. Doesn't matter. My spirit soars or my spirit is crushed. All the same. My brain, which is just me, the real squishy me, kicks out a chemical or two, and I experience something. Is it my spirit? Only if I decide to define it as a spirit and this is where muddying the waters comes into play. The word is used for many other things so I don't want to further throw buckets of muck in the mix. If I choose to wax poetic then perhaps this is my spirit but strictly speaking it is not and will never be.

 

If all it is is metaphysics, than yes. It's meaningless. But if the terms are descriptive language of experience, then it's not meaningless.

It we're to communicate without ambiguity then to muddy the term makes it meaningless. Since if we're using the term in two, or more, different ways we're not having a meeting of the minds. Communication never truly happens.

 

No it's not. (Unless it's part of some sort of trantric pratice however). Again, there are experiential differences, and qualifiers such as "better" or "higher" are pretty universal in those who experience these things and their differences. How they talk about it, how they describe it, will vary, but for instance, to love is considered as "better" experience than to hate.

So there's now a definition to "spirit" or "spiritual?" And there's better and worse versions of it? So that means there must be some way to quantify it. That would mean that you could know if this or that version was "better" than another version. This means that it would be possible to establish an authority on the subject.

 

It's not a meaningless term, and it describes figuratively fairly well. Again, if all you have is theory, then you are correct, it's meaningless. Kant was right about the death of metaphysics in that way.

So it has meaning? It can be defined? You can define it then? We should all be able to agree on this definition? And it would work historically? And cross-culturally?

 

mwc

[Legion]

Just a thought for you, if you understand that the subjective plays a part in understanding the objective world (and consequently ones experience of and interaction with this objective world), then how does understanding the nature ones subjective self not play a part of this?? Would you say that it is just logic and a set of signs about the world that informs us of reality?

Well, again Antlerman, from my perspective it seems that you advocate an exploration of the subjective world. I can't really disagree with this seeing that mathematics, for instance, are subjective things. However if we are only doing math then we are not doing science, in my opinion. It is a good and necessary thing, because the richer our languages the more likely they will be useful for mirroring the natural world. But an exploration of the subjective world alone is not science in my opinion. To me, the aim of science is fulfilled when causality and language coincide.

[Antlerman]

Just a thought for you, if you understand that the subjective plays a part in understanding the objective world (and consequently ones experience of and interaction with this objective world), then how does understanding the nature ones subjective self not play a part of this?? Would you say that it is just logic and a set of signs about the world that informs us of reality?

Well, again Antlerman, from my perspective it seems that you advocate an exploration of the subjective world. I can't really disagree with this seeing that mathematics, for instance, are subjective things. However if we are only doing math then we are not doing science, in my opinion. It is a good and necessary thing, because the richer our languages the more likely they will be useful for mirroring the natural world. But an exploration of the subjective world alone is not science in my opinion. To me, the aim of science is fulfilled when causality and language coincide.

And you didn't answer my question which was how is it that it seems to you that I consider it "doing science"?

 

Everything you say here I pretty much agree with, with the caveat of adding that the natural world is hardly a static thing, and that because 'doing science' is as you say a play between the subjective and objective, as the subjective understanding changes so does the understanding of the objective. The world is no longer flat. One day, soon hopefully, thanks to people like your hero, it won't be understood to be some flat, static thing that can flattened and reduced to meaninglessness, but rather like the earth being a globe in space will be understood to be far more interactive and interdependent, creating properties or 'spheres' of reality that can't be reduced to nothing more than just a bunch of chemicals playing with our brains. In other words, I believe as you do that you cannot just set aside the observer in the thing observed.

 

But to address Vigile's point about the subjective itself being completely outside the realm of science, I would say not. You can measure the effects of the subjective manifest objectively (much like the natural world itself, I'll add). You can compare behaviors, languages, societies, and so forth, all external manifestations of the subjective. Through this you can measure external things objectively, as far as that can go. The problem with it is is that it is too 'fuzzy'. You're dealing with very strange variables of 'mind'. It's not as clean and precise as doing physics.

 

I work in the financial world in technology and they have sophisticated algorithmic systems designed to make trades in nanosecond decisions, attempting to exploit movements in the market to get even a fraction of a second advantage which in the trading of millions of dollars a few pennies multiplied at that level add up to a large sum of money. But it is impossible to predict what will happen because of the subjective nature of the human individual. They developed game theory to attempt to predict patterns of group behavior, which is what they use to some limited success in economics. But if the human can be reduced down to just chemical, as MWC seems to suggest , then it shouldn't be long now that we can make those holy grail successful predictions, since after all we are just physics. The person who could do such a thing first, would literally own the world and all that is in it.

 

No, I think this too comes back to that equation I brought into this discussion about the West and it's need to have an Authority tells us the facts. It's something we inherited through the Church in its Orthodoxy and we simply are transferring the mindset over to other systems to try to give us the same thing. But its a fallacy. Rather, to me it seems more productive to in fact continue with our "hard sciences", predictive models and whatnot, but to have a shift in philosophy culturally that accepts the subjective world as a sphere of itself in relation to the objective world, rather than trying to reduce it down to physics and chemistry. I believe, just as the earth is no longer considered flat, that the reductionist beliefs themselves will give way to a larger understanding, which comes through a deeper understanding of the subjective within the objective. And how do we then foster that understanding?

 

All for the moment.

[oddbird1963]

No. Evolution is not an explanation for how or why life exists. It can be misused as a pseudo-religion for a secular answer to everything, so the adherents believe that the universe and life are a happy accident. I don't have that level of faith but can't say that a soul exists apart from our physical selves either. I want to go wherever my doggies are going.

 

NoGods didn't try to use evolution as an explanation for "how or why life exists." He questioned whether the soul is useful or possible in light of evolutionary knowledge.

 

Where do you get the idea that evolution is an explanation for "how or why life exists?" I thought it was an explanation for development of diverse species.

[Antlerman]

Legion, I just read this quote for the first time today from someone I think gives a certain level of consideration to what I'm saying, and expresses better what I think than what you seem to think I think:

 

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree... A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

 

A human being is part of the whole called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.

 

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."

 

~Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science

 

It is in the interest of recognizing the wholeness of everything that you journey inward to see that self, and ego, and separateness are but illusions, objects created of words and perceptions. Does this help shed some light on what I actually think?

[Rev R]

bird wings

bat wings

[Legion]

I agree with Einstein in terms of the organic roots and aspirations of science. However when it comes to the meat and potatoes of science then we're talking about producing models, just as Einstein himself did. Models themselves assume a subjective use of language and thus a self. Sure, I could encourage you to understand the world to the extent that you are liberated from the self. I will stand in awe. But when I ask for an explicit understanding then I hope you'll offer a model.

 

I don't believe we are in too much disagreement Antlerman. I heard a relational biologist suggest that we should distinguish between science and meta-science. Perhaps it's a matter of you thinking in meta-scientific terms.

[Antlerman]

I agree with Einstein in terms of the organic roots and aspirations of science. However when it comes to the meat and potatoes of science then we're talking about producing models, just as Einstein himself did. Models themselves assume a subjective use of language and thus a self. Sure, I could encourage you to understand the world to the extent that you are liberated from the self. I will stand in awe. But when I ask for an explicit understanding then I hope you'll offer a model.

...that can be understood and processed to your close understanding.... Imagine trying to explain our models 2000 years ago, or even 500 years ago.

 

I don't believe we are in too much disagreement Antlerman.

Yes, you are getting closer.

 

I heard a relational biologist suggest that we should distinguish between science and meta-science. Perhaps it's a matter of you thinking in meta-scientific terms.

Yes and no. I think, like in a sense as Einstein said, "The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science." In that this intuition gleaned from the subjective, opens the simpler functioning, rational mind to the natural world where our sciences can seek for a certain level of clarity to translate it downward into your scientific discourse that we can process and digest into a lateral function. Where do you think the theory of relativity came from exactly? For that matter, where do any reaching hypothesis come from? I think this is what he was intimating at.

 

I see our sciences following the genius of our humanity in its depths of insights into the Universe, that surpasses the tools of research. Should those then be turned into models with support? Sure. In many regards this is where your "meta" disciplines attempt to come in. Which is why I'm not quick to call them 'the answer'. Models that include more, are better, but they are still models. But if you wish models, go read my past 600 posts.

[Galien]

Not being one given to certainty, and not needing it, I am often puzzled by man's (and I do mean that as a gender specific term) need to be right. There are things we do know, and things we don't know. So what? I cannot see how evolution does deny the existence of a soul, never could. I don't know why the whloe question is such an either/or option for so many people. Doesn't make sense.

[mwc]

Not being one given to certainty, and not needing it, I am often puzzled by man's (and I do mean that as a gender specific term) need to be right.

Do people, men or women, often have a need to be wrong? As a man should I read into this that the secret to attracting women is to strive to be incorrect? Does this drive the females wild? When given a choice between the male that is correct most often and the one that is not do the females swoon for the one who is most wrong? When men put their ideas into practice do women get hot and bothered for the man who has just killed himself because, let's face it, he was very, very wrong?

 

There are things we do know, and things we don't know. So what? I cannot see how evolution does deny the existence of a soul, never could. I don't know why the whloe question is such an either/or option for so many people. Doesn't make sense.

So when did the soul evolve? What evolutionary purpose did it serve? What does it look like or how does it manifest itself? Does it mutate/change/evolve like other evolutionary traits?

 

It would be an either/or option since you have a soul or you do not. You can't sort of have a soul can you? A partial soul? Half a soul? How can you determine this at all? What is the test? A blood test? DNA? Anal probe? Stick in the eye?

 

mwc

[Galien]

Not being one given to certainty, and not needing it, I am often puzzled by man's (and I do mean that as a gender specific term) need to be right.

 

Do people, men or women, often have a need to be wrong? As a man should I read into this that the secret to attracting women is to strive to be incorrect? Does this drive the females wild? When given a choice between the male that is correct most often and the one that is not do the females swoon for the one who is most wrong? When men put their ideas into practice do women get hot and bothered for the man who has just killed himself because, let's face it, he was very, very wrong?

 

No. No. No. No. No. Geez man calm your farm. What shits me is this constant need to prove how smart we are. You don't know everything. Deal with it.

 

There are things we do know, and things we don't know. So what? I cannot see how evolution does deny the existence of a soul, never could. I don't know why the whloe question is such an either/or option for so many people. Doesn't make sense.

 

So when did the soul evolve? What evolutionary purpose did it serve? What does it look like or how does it manifest itself? Does it mutate/change/evolve like other evolutionary traits?

 

It would be an either/or option since you have a soul or you do not. You can't sort of have a soul can you? A partial soul? Half a soul? How can you determine this at all? What is the test? A blood test? DNA? Anal probe? Stick in the eye?

 

mwc

 

Are you always this boring? Do you never speculate? Perhaps an anal probe might calm you down a bit Why do you have to determine if there is a soul? Would you like it if there were a blood test that proved you had one? Why do you need scientific proof for every single damn thing? Does an expert wearing a white coat have to tell you everything so as to make it credible? Why is there always a group of someone who thinks they can say "this is what WE believe" then hammer it like there is no other alternative. Now where have we seen that attitude before?

 

Are you afraid if you don't follow the science is god crowd you won't have credibility and all the other boys and girls won't play with you?

 

Truth is mate there will ALWAYS be more things on the earth than you and I will ever understand. Who cares? Always having to be right is the refuge of the insecure. Let it go.

[Antlerman]

Not being one given to certainty, and not needing it, I am often puzzled by man's (and I do mean that as a gender specific term) need to be right.

Do people, men or women, often have a need to be wrong? As a man should I read into this that the secret to attracting women is to strive to be incorrect? Does this drive the females wild? When given a choice between the male that is correct most often and the one that is not do the females swoon for the one who is most wrong? When men put their ideas into practice do women get hot and bothered for the man who has just killed himself because, let's face it, he was very, very wrong?

In a civilized society in the discourse of ideas those males who puff their chests and say they are right while closing down their minds are generally considered unattractive by those women who use their minds. If the woman herself is of little depth, then likely what attracts her to males are simple things, like their little symbolic ritualized matting displays through things like revving up the loud muffler on their shiny Camaro or big truck with large wheels. "Varroooom, varroooom... I'm more right than other men! Mate with me!! Varoooomm.... varoooommm..."

 

Often times 'being right' amounts to nothing more than this, a puffing of the chest and a revving of the motor. There is no true inquiry and discovery, but it's rather a matter of position. "I have the 'right' belief. I am right." Note the position of "I" How attractive...

 

 

There are things we do know, and things we don't know. So what? I cannot see how evolution does deny the existence of a soul, never could. I don't know why the whloe question is such an either/or option for so many people. Doesn't make sense.

So when did the soul evolve? What evolutionary purpose did it serve? What does it look like or how does it manifest itself? Does it mutate/change/evolve like other evolutionary traits?

 

It would be an either/or option since you have a soul or you do not. You can't sort of have a soul can you? A partial soul? Half a soul? How can you determine this at all? What is the test? A blood test? DNA? Anal probe? Stick in the eye?

 

mwc

What about maturity? Can you sort of be mature? Be partially mature? Be half mature? How do you determine this at all? What is the test? What is the test for maturity? Who determines this? What is the evolutionary purpose for maturity? How does it manifest itself?

 

 

BTW, though I disagree with your interpretation of what the purpose of the Gnostic Gospels were, that discussion should be a separate topic in itself as it would be getting into specific details about that subject and end up derailing this thread. I brought them up solely as an example of where the mindset of having Authority got transmitted into our cultural psyche through the system of Orthodoxy, which is now transferred to other systems to take that role.

 

Suffice to say, your argument supporting that they were equally about having positions of authority as the orthodox, is comparable to those who say that those who are "intolerant of intolerance", are themselves being intolerant. It's a very weak argument that doesn't hold up.

 

I actually think I should resurrect and old topic of mine to add new thoughts in this area that relate to it. This old topic here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/23961-the-conundrum-of-religion/page__view__findpost__p__376262

[Rev R]

Not being one given to certainty, and not needing it, I am often puzzled by man's (and I do mean that as a gender specific term) need to be right. There are things we do know, and things we don't know. So what? I cannot see how evolution does deny the existence of a soul, never could. I don't know why the whloe question is such an either/or option for so many people. Doesn't make sense.

 

How is this not indulging in the "need" to be "right"?

[Antlerman]

Not being one given to certainty, and not needing it, I am often puzzled by man's (and I do mean that as a gender specific term) need to be right. There are things we do know, and things we don't know. So what? I cannot see how evolution does deny the existence of a soul, never could. I don't know why the whloe question is such an either/or option for so many people. Doesn't make sense.

 

How is this not indulging in the "need" to be "right"?

The need to not be always right, is always right.