Theistic Evolution

by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  botchtowersociety

  Will that bring new types of religion? Weird to think about---not expecting answers.

  http://www.kurzweilai.net/transhumanist-religion-2-0

  Transhumanist religion 2.0

  Cosmism, an emerging “religion 2.0” that is part of a radical futurist conception of the future development of humanity, can give us the positive optimism and “strenuous mood” to overcome our current problems and embark on our cosmic journey.

  So say contemporary cosmists, who believe that the “manifest destiny” of our species is colonizing the universe and developing spacetime engineering and scientific “future magic” much beyond our current understanding and imagination.

  These ideas were first developed in the late 19th century by Russian Cosmism, the scientific philosophy of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Nikolai Fedorov, who considered science as a tool given to us by God to enable us to resurrect the dead and, as promised, enjoy immortal life.

  Some cosmists — including me — expect that God-like beings will exist in the future, and they may be able to affect their past — our present — by means of spacetime engineering. Probably other civilizations out there have already attained God-like powers.

  “It’s at least conceivable that remarkably advanced technology of the future may allow positive answers — that our descendants will have the god-like ability to recreate us in the future, giving us an unexpected prospect for immortality,” says David Wood in Super-technology and a possible renaissance of religion.

  Future magic will permit achieving, by scientific means, most of the promises of religions — and many amazing things that no human religion ever dreamed of. Future God-like beings could resurrect the dead by “copying them to the future.” Perhaps we will be resurrected in virtual reality — and perhaps we are already there.

  I have written a lot about these convictions, without calling them “beliefs.” But, following William James, since I am persuaded that these convictions are scientifically plausible, and they give me happiness and drive, I choose to hold them as beliefs.
• 

  jamesmahon

  Twitch

  All extinct life was successful in that it initally replaced something "inferior"

  Agreed with everything you said but pulled this out because it is interesting. Evolution has no concept of 'inferior' or 'superior' - unless it is theistic. Evolution by natural selection merely selects organisms with genes that code for proteins that are best at coping in the environment at any given time. Inferiority is an anthropomorphic view of the evolutionary process. There is no reason to suspect that consciousness is anything but an evolutionary cul-de-sac that will never be repeated. The majority of biomass on the planet are simple organisms with relatively few genes and have changed relatively little over 100s of millions of years compared to the genetic codes of large 'more complex' organisms that have an average species life span of I think 1.5 million years. This suggests that natural selection favours the small and 'inferior' far more than the large and 'complicated'.

  This is unsurprising. A large species like a human has 23000 genes that work in a complex network with the ability to pass genes on only occurring slowly. Such species cannot cope with environmental change very well compared to animals with far fewer genes and rapid reproduction cycles. It will be interesting to say whether our apparent self-awareness actually makes our extinction quicker as our environment changes rapidly or prolongs our presence as a species.

  Good topic Crofty.
• 

  cofty

  Thanks everybody for your input, its refreshing to exchange beliefs without feeling the need for a facepalm.

  Sulla and BTS - Its already been said but the obvious question seems to be why a god who has been so passive in the sight of human and humanoid sufffering for so long is worthy of worship?
• 

  simon17

  Inferiority is an anthropomorphic view of the evolutionary process. There is no reason to suspect that consciousness is anything but an evolutionary cul-de-sac that will never be repeated.

  Intelligence is interesting though. Of course you're right that in evolution, nothing is really inferior or superior, but there is something inherently different about evolution producing a species capable of consciously effecting their own evolution. An intelligent being that has mildly mastered genetric need not wait for evolution to make them adapt to change, but can genetically change themselves. That is a different level of product.
• 

  binadub

  Maybe I misunderstood the question. I thought it was more about whether ID is creationism or not.
  It's not. It's more about Darwinian evolution vs. Deism if I understand it, and how it is different than "theistic evolution."

  That's not saying that some of the ID proponents are not religious, but some are simply deists.

  Did I misunderstand the issue?

  ~Binadub
• 

  cofty

  binadub- I hope it was clear in the OP. I inserted a couple of paragraphs to establish the difference between ID and TE to avoid confusiion but the thread is about TE, does it make logical and moral sense?

  ID is creationism - it is 100% unscientific. I would be happy to discuss that with you if you like?
• 

  NewChapter

  ID is creationism In Disguise. It is a pseudoscience meant to push for the Genesis account (literal) and deny science.

  TE accepts science, and understands it. There is simply the belief that behind it all, there is a god. Not that this being directed Evolution, but that something was set into motion by this entity, and the process then continued and scientists continue to unravel the mystery of how.

  They are very different. But I cannot stress this enough. ID is creationism. In fact, ID textbooks were submitted for approval to be put in schools, and the educators found that it was EXACTLY the same as creationists books---word for word---except they went back and replaced mention of creation and God with Intelligent Design. They messed up at one point and did not delete the original word before they replaced it, and got a hybrid word. Was funny.

  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  More on that creationism/design typo.

  cdesign proponentsists

  Investigations subsequent to the case showed that, in one particular case, an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists" but in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists". [1] [2] This typo has been mocked by some as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design, notably ironic considering creationists don't accept transitional forms. It's possibly this aspect alone that has promoted the meme to be as famous as it is. If they'd learned to use "Find and Replace" [3] properly, then this wouldn't have happened.

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists
• 

  cofty

  That was hilarious NC. It was from an earlier draft of the book "Pandas and People". It came out at the Kitzmiller v Dover School Board trial when ID was exposed for what it is.
• 

  NewChapter

  I know Cofty. I first learned about it when I watched a documentary on the ID court battle in Pennsylvania. That's how they found it. I.D. is creationism---but they like to dress it up.