Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Next Stage in Our (Religious) Evolution
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 35 (523792)
09-12-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Remember - This is a religion evolution topic, not a biological evolution topic
Thank you moose, clarification is always a good thing.
The theme is the evolution of religions.
While comparisons to biological evolution are proper and part of the topic ...
Which means using the language of evolution to discuss the changes observed in religions. As I did in Message 10:
RAZD writes:
Christianity is obviously an adaptation of new beliefs while deleting some old beliefs compared to Judaism, otherwise there would be no need to include only part of the old testament. You could say that it is judaism with a mutant jesus strain: all daughter populations of christianity carry the jesus mutation, and none of the remaining populations of judaism carry the mutation. The parent population has been divided into daughter populations, and judaism has since evolved separately from christianity.
and
All daughter populations of protestantism carry the reformation mutation, and none of the remaining populations of (catholic) christianity carry the same mutations (Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther) in the same proportions. The parent population has been divided into daughter populations, and (catholic) christianity has since evolved separately from protestantism, including brances into other different forms of christianity.
You can form a family tree of all the various christian and jewish sects and cults, showing descent from a common ancestor. This is evidence that evolution has occurred.
I believe that succinctly sums up the argument made, and that ochaye has failed to address.
... this should not turn into a biological evolution topic.
ochaye made a false claim about biological evolution, and that has been corrected.
Let us proceed with the discussion on the (obviously observed) evolution of religions.
For ochaye and others in the discussion:
I predict that in the future the frequency of YEC "allele" will have diminished due to the overwhelming evidence for an old earth, and the increase in Old Earth "allele" -- just as the geocentric "allele" has all but become extinct.
I also predict that some form of "christian" church will persist, based on the teachings found to have positive selection value to the people that form part of the population.
Religions in the future will scoff at the idea of a young earth being part of their belief/s, just as religions now scoff at the idea of a flat earth or a geocentric universe being a part of their belief/s.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : del

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2009 3:53 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 17 of 35 (523806)
09-12-2009 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ochaye
09-12-2009 3:22 PM


Re: what would religious evolution look like
It doesn't. Learn what evolution actually says before you make an assertion like that again. Thou shalt not lie!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 3:22 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 6:00 PM Taz has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 18 of 35 (523807)
09-12-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taz
09-12-2009 5:54 PM


Re: what would religious evolution look like
Skepticism takes careful aim and blows its brains out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 09-12-2009 5:54 PM Taz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 35 (523808)
09-12-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ochaye
09-12-2009 3:28 PM


For the record ...
Hi ochaye, I'll just jot down a couple of observations, seeing as you seem to have a problem with my posts.
Message 7
Can you not read advanced English? What do these things- '' mean? I assume that you are not malicious, and simply misunderstood.
This is called an ad hominem logical fallacy - you've attacked the person and not answered the message.
Biological evolution implies advance.
Curiously, you do not get to redefine words to suit your worldview. The term "biological evolution" has a specific meaning within science, and you either communicate with that meaning, or you are talking about something else.
Because you have employed a false definition of biological evolution does not mean that your argument about religions evolving is true - it means that you are talking nonsense.
You have been corrected on your misuse of the term, as was demonstrated:
RAZD writes:
There is no implication for "advance" in these words. If you disagree with my definition, then I suggest you refer to:
The University of Berkely definition
The University of Michigan definitions (two):
Note: there is no implication of "advance" in those words either. Note further that these are from the websites used by these universities to teach biological evolution.
You also made an error about the effect of evolution on populations that has also been corrected:
RAZD writes:
Rather than increase in population, as with biological organisms, the reverse occurred and is ongoing.
The reduction of populations in biology is an often observed phenomenon, and it occurs whenever a population cannot adapt to a changing environment (including competition). The ultimate result is extinction, as has occurred to most species in the natural history of earth.
Because (among other problems) you thought that there was a connection between biological evolution and advancement AND between biological evolution and the size of populations, you have made false conclusions about the evolution of religion.
Now you need to (1) acknowledge the fact that your usage of biological evolution was erroneous, and (2) apply your new knowledge about the term to your argument, to see if it stands up. Hint: it doesn't,
Only the one who failed to answer or even quote the crucial question has a problem,...
Again, this is the ad hominem logical fallacy again. You will find that I have indeed addressed the issue if you read the Message 10 again:
RAZD writes:
Christianity is obviously an adaptation of new beliefs while deleting some old beliefs compared to Judaism, otherwise there would be no need to include only part of the old testament. You could say that it is judaism with a mutant jesus strain: all daughter populations of christianity carry the jesus mutation, and none of the remaining populations of judaism carry the mutation. The parent population has been divided into daughter populations, and judaism has since evolved separately from christianity.
...
All daughter populations of protestantism carry the reformation mutation, and none of the remaining populations of (catholic) christianity carry the same mutations (Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther) in the same proportions. The parent population has been divided into daughter populations, and (catholic) christianity has since evolved separately from protestantism, including brances into other different forms of christianity.
You can form a family tree of all the various christian and jewish sects and cults, showing descent from a common ancestor. This is evidence that evolution has occurred.
Now, in the interest of moving the discussion forward, I also made some predictions in Message 16:
RAZD writes:
For ochaye and others in the discussion:
I predict that in the future the frequency of YEC "allele" will have diminished due to the overwhelming evidence for an old earth, and the increase in Old Earth "allele" -- just as the geocentric "allele" has all but become extinct.
I also predict that some form of "christian" church will persist, based on the teachings found to have positive selection value to the people that form part of the population.
Religions in the future will scoff at the idea of a young earth being part of their belief/s, just as religions now scoff at the idea of a flat earth or a geocentric universe being a part of their belief/s.
These predictions are consistent with the evolution of religions seen so far. They are also very much the topic of this thread.
Care to discuss this? Or are you going to abdicate your position of one who wants to achieve "Understanding through Discussion" as you claimed (Message 9)?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 3:28 PM ochaye has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 20 of 35 (523812)
09-12-2009 6:39 PM


Twain
Here's a short piece from a century ago that very nicely addresses the evolution of religion: "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice" by Mark Twain. It's as well-written as you'd expect from him.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainwp.htm#BIBLE

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 6:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 21 of 35 (523815)
09-12-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Coragyps
09-12-2009 6:39 PM


Re: Twain
quote:
It's as well-written as you'd expect from him.
Quite so. Novelists know a trick or two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 09-12-2009 6:39 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 35 (523822)
09-12-2009 8:19 PM


I was just thinking about a similar concept for language, how language evolves and what we can expect in the future. I think religion has some parallels, so please bear with me for the first bit.
I think that the modern age, with convenient transport, communication, and unprecedented levels of literacy will serve to stop the evolution of language cold. This isn't to say that there will not be variations in delivery between generations as culture changes, but I think that the presence of easily-accessed records of previous language will prevent extensive language mutation. For instance, around the time of the USA's founding the spelling of words was essentially left to the whim of the writer. Print and increased literacy has served to nail them down quite nicely, despite what the l33t-speek crowd would lead you to believe.
Cross-language sharing will not increase enough to merge languages any time soon, but the modern world serves to reduce mutation in existent language "species".
Now for how this relates to religion: The same technological advances that increase knowledge of language also increase knowledge of religion, and this is extremely damaging to their development. It is no longer possible to simply lie about the origin of a religion and get away with it, and claims of miraculous happenings are subject to a much higher level of scrutiny. For instance, with a web camera in every home it can be wondered why Joseph Smith Jr. did not Twitter the joyful news "with sauce" as they say.
In my view religions are universally based on ignorance and deception, things which become harder the more information is available. Existing religions will continue to be altered according to the whims of their practitioners however, as those from different views intermarry and the religions conform to the changing expectations of society (while stridently denying it). Still, I expect that the rate of mutation within religions will decrease with the increases in communication, but that the sharing of concepts between religions will increase dramatically.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 8:59 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 23 of 35 (523828)
09-12-2009 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phage0070
09-12-2009 8:19 PM


quote:
I think that the modern age, with convenient transport, communication, and unprecedented levels of literacy will serve to stop the evolution of language cold.
There's no sign of it so far. There is a noun newly 'verbised' every week! There's another! And much of it today is due to incoherence and mental torpidity, not education and intelligence.
Language has always evolved, i.e. adapted to be useful in new environments, and language experts are agreed that this will always be the case. The rate of change varies, it is true, but this has been quite closely correlated with economic and social change, as one would expect.
quote:
claims of miraculous happenings are subject to a much higher level of scrutiny
Look, if the Vatican says it's a miracle, it's a miracle, and nothing you or I say will make any difference.
quote:
In my view religions are universally based on ignorance and deception
In whose interest?
Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phage0070, posted 09-12-2009 8:19 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Phage0070, posted 09-12-2009 9:52 PM ochaye has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 35 (523836)
09-12-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ochaye
09-12-2009 8:59 PM


ochaye writes:
Language has always evolved, i.e. adapted to be useful in new environments, and language experts are agreed that this will always be the case.
Absolutely. But the connection between geographically distant populations means that language is extremely unlikely to "speciate" into incompatibility, or spawn isolated populations.
ochaye writes:
In whose interest?
Usually the interests of the deceiver.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 8:59 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 9:58 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 25 of 35 (523838)
09-12-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Phage0070
09-12-2009 9:52 PM


quote:
the connection between geographically distant populations means that language is extremely unlikely to "speciate" into incompatibility, or spawn isolated populations.
Even within one country, all people do not understand each other. Take a young dude from the Bronx, a dear old lady from a Sussex village, put them on an island for mutual co-operation, and they probably won't understand each other much, even tho' they both speak the same language, supposedly.
quote:
Usually the interests of the deceiver.
You don't say. Who might that be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Phage0070, posted 09-12-2009 9:52 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 09-12-2009 10:29 PM ochaye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 35 (523840)
09-12-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
09-11-2009 8:21 PM


Hi Teapots&unicorns,
Do you think any religous texts will have survived or will they have been utterly forgetten or changed irrevocably (like Dune's Orange Catholic Bible).
As Mark Twain noted in the article Coragyps provided in Message 20 religion is inevitably pulled dragging and kicking into the next age, as our knowledge of reality increases, and as our sense of morality and ethics develops. It may well be that "the text remains the same but the practice changes" so that there will be bibles\korans\torahs\vedas\tibetan books of the dead\etc but the interpretations, the application will be different.
Advocates of understanding through discussion with advanced english will note that Mark Twain says that religions evolve and adapt to the changes in society as the values of society change.
Religious leaders within the different sects and cults will then add post hoc egro propter hoc explanations of how that was what their religion claimed originally. They will do this to attract adherents in order to keep the sect\cult alive. Thus they will either mutate and evolve in response to a changing ecology, or they will stagnate and become extinct.
As religion is ever-evolving (much like nature), where do you think that we will be in a few million years- if we survive that long?
Change is inevitable for those religions that involve beliefs at odds with reality - such as the young earth belief - and while the text may not be altered, the interpretation/s, the application/s, will change, just as they have regarding the shape of the earth and the place of the earth in the cosmos. We already see this going on for most sects of most modern religions.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-11-2009 8:21 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 35 (523841)
09-12-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ochaye
09-12-2009 9:58 PM


ochaye writes:
Take a young dude from the Bronx, a dear old lady from a Sussex village, put them on an island for mutual co-operation, and they probably won't understand each other much, even tho' they both speak the same language, supposedly.
Exactly, it became that way because they were geographically isolated enough to prevent frequent communication. This allowed the language to diverge; with more frequent communication the divergence would not occur which is why the dude from the Bronx can understand other dudes from the Bronx, and the old lady from Sussex fits right into Sussex. I think that technology allowing easy and frequent long-distance communication will reduce such things tremendously.
ochaye writes:
You don't say. Who might that be?
It varies depending on the situation. Why would you be under the impression I was referring to a specific individual?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 9:58 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 10:46 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 28 of 35 (523843)
09-12-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phage0070
09-12-2009 10:29 PM


quote:
why the dude from the Bronx can understand other dudes from the Bronx, and the old lady from Sussex fits right into Sussex. I think that technology allowing easy and frequent long-distance communication will reduce such things tremendously.
When will the dude and the Sussex lady communicate?
quote:
It varies depending on the situation.
It does? Or is this all in the imagination, a shot in the dark?
quote:
Why would you be under the impression I was referring to a specific individual?
I haven't the least idea about who was referred to. I'm getting the feeling that I will never find out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 09-12-2009 10:29 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phage0070, posted 09-13-2009 12:17 AM ochaye has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 35 (523852)
09-13-2009 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ochaye
09-12-2009 10:46 PM


ochaye writes:
When will the dude and the Sussex lady communicate?
On a message board where they discuss techniques for micro-gardens in low-light conditions. The Bronx dude's crop is probably a little different that what the Sussex lady expects...
Or a myriad of other places and topics. Why should I have to justify specific instances where your hypothetical people would communicate? My point is that their social circles *can* communicate. It might be the Sussex lady's grandson who actually talks to the Bronx dude.
ochaye writes:
It does? Or is this all in the imagination, a shot in the dark?
If I say that thieves thieve because they are tempted by the prospect of gain through less difficult channels than normal, I don't think it is required that I specify a specific thief. I don't think it would be assumed that I was talking about a specific thief.
All you are trying to do is demand unreasonable proofs. For instance, you said "Language has always evolved, i.e. adapted to be useful in new environments, and language experts are agreed that this will always be the case." Well, state which language expert exactly says this will always be the case. Tell me how that expert can divine the future, or is it just the speculation of one person?
My statement was about many people, and no, I cannot define them individually. Nor do I have to, or would generally be expected to. If you do not agree then you can make your argument like a reasonable person, rather than being a contentious nit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 10:46 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ochaye, posted 09-13-2009 6:25 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 30 of 35 (523883)
09-13-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phage0070
09-13-2009 12:17 AM


quote:
My point is that their social circles *can* communicate.
That isn't your point, is it. Your point is that you think that the modern age, with convenient transport, communication, and unprecedented levels of literacy will serve to stop the evolution of language cold. But the likelihood of middle class English matrons chatting to dudes, or, probably, to any other sort of ghetto for more than a brief encounter, is so low as to be amusingly unimaginable. So speciation, that has already gone a long, long way despite modern progress over several centuries, is unlikely to be diminished now. All of us to a degree live in little ghettoes, each with its own argot, though sometimes we may inhabit more than one. The more populated Western society gets, the more easily will people be unaware that cultures outside their own even exist. Americans are infamous for that already, or they were before 9/11.
quote:
All you are trying to do is demand unreasonable proofs.
I'm asking for evidence to support an allegation made, a serious allegation of deliberate deception. People will ask, "Where is the moral fibre of skeptics?" if there is not either such evidence, or a retraction. That wouldn't do, would it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phage0070, posted 09-13-2009 12:17 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phage0070, posted 09-13-2009 6:48 AM ochaye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024