Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Philosophising on the Evo vs Creo debate.
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 56 (309203)
05-04-2006 7:49 PM


Is the Western way of thinking to blame for the Evo/Creo debate?
Is the Evo/Creo debate fuelled by the western way of thinking that things are objects not events and in that way we presume that objects have to be made?
I have just been listening to some old lectures by Allan Watts, and it has made me think about the evolution/creation debate in a different way (philosophically?).
Alan Watts was interested in the differences between Eastern and Western ways of thinking and one of my favourite quotes of his was that where a western child would ask “how was I made” an eastern child would ask “how did I grow”. Another one is that the Western term for “being here” would be “I came into this world” whereas the equivalent Eastern term would be “I came out of this world”.
I do not know much about the Eastern (Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist) ways of thought other than what I have heard via Alan Watts and other western interpreters. But I doubt that the Evo/Creo debate would even exist in a Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist based Eastern culture. I did, however, think that this might be an interesting topic for the Evo vs Creo forums.
(With this in mind maybe it should have been in the Comparative Religion section?)
Also I am trying hard not to be “scientific” in this topic as that is my usual POV, I’m just trying to give a different philosophical perspective to the TOE /Creation debate, and see what people think of it.
Below is the theme that got me thinking about this. I have tried to put Alan Watts’ discussions into my own words so apologies for misquoting/paraphrasing.
Why do we call a fist a fist, surely when we wave we call it waving, when we point we call it pointing, so a hand in the form of a fist is fisting (no crude jokes please).
The point, I think, is - a fist is not an object, but an event and that we (in the west) tend to think in terms of objects rather than events.
When an apple tree bears fruit we call it fruiting, we could call it appleing.
Appleing is what an apple tree does, it is it’s raison d’etre.
If an alien race visited Earth over 3.5Ba ago they would see no sign of life, but if they visited again now they might say “oh look that planet is now peopleing”.
So when a planet produces people we could call it peopleing.
As an apple tree apples so the Earth peoples (as AW puts it).
The point, I think, is, by this analogy we can realise that people are not “made” at all, as western religious thought would have it, in the image of god, but they grow out of their environment just as all organisms do.
Continuing this theme and expanding it:
In the same way when a planet/environment grows any organism we could call it organisming (creaturing, crittering , lifeing, . what you will).
What I am trying to get at is that the appearance of these organisms we are normally inclined to call things or objects are actually events, and there should be a term for these events.
Putting it into an evolutionary perspective:
As organisms are delineated by the term species, we could see species as events rather than things or objects. So a term for the continuing growth of life on a planet would be speciating.
Going up the scale from species we get genera, so generating might be a better term. The Earth generates But that just does not quite grasp the concept.
Science does have a word for the start of life on a planet, abiogenesis - the generation of life from non life, but saying that the planet is abiogenesising is a bit of a mouthful, and not quite what I am getting at, as this does not appear to be a continuing process.
There must be a word to express the continuing growth of life on the planet, like an apple tree apples, but I just can’t quite bring the right one to mind.
Maybe it’s just evolution - the Earth evoluts.
So are we made as objects, or are we events in the life cycle of the earth?
This message has been edited by halucigenia, 04-05-2006 09:09 PM Edited for clarity and background (I hope that's not too much of an edit, after it had been promoted)
This message has been edited by halucigenia, 05-05-2006 12:52 PM Just tweaking grammar
This message has been edited by halucigenia, 05-05-2006 02:03 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 05-04-2006 7:49 PM halucigenia has not replied
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 05-04-2006 8:22 PM halucigenia has not replied
 Message 4 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-04-2006 8:53 PM halucigenia has replied
 Message 6 by ikabod, posted 05-05-2006 3:53 AM halucigenia has replied
 Message 12 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 11:18 AM halucigenia has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 56 (309323)
05-05-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by DominionSeraph
05-04-2006 8:53 PM


It's not a wave or a point
Making a wave, or a point could be an action. So why do we not call a waving hand a wave, or a pointing hand a point? A hand waving is not the object called a wave or a hand pointing is not an object called a point.
Anyway the point is that realising that a fist is not an object but an event leads on to the rest of the argument, maybe it's a zen thing .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-04-2006 8:53 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 8:20 AM halucigenia has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 56 (309324)
05-05-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by lfen
05-05-2006 12:09 AM


It is a zen thing
quote:
After having made a fist where does it go if you open your hand?
  —lfen
Very zen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lfen, posted 05-05-2006 12:09 AM lfen has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 56 (309328)
05-05-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ikabod
05-05-2006 3:53 AM


The eternal now
That's another of Alan Watts' favorites - the eternal now.
quote:
so we see your actions/events as objects .. and we speak in fixed time .. a fist is a fist (object) not a transient formation of fingers and palm (event) even in the passed and future we still view it fixed at a static time ..
  —ikabod
Exactly - a snapshot in time makes it look like an object rather than an event changing with time. Analogous with fossil species perhaps.
This message has been edited by halucigenia, 05-05-2006 01:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ikabod, posted 05-05-2006 3:53 AM ikabod has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 56 (309330)
05-05-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ikabod
05-05-2006 3:53 AM


Look, it's a finger.
Oops double post, I will just change this to a reply to robinrohan.
I see what you mean about the symbolism of a hand pointing and a dog, it makes me think of a visual gag done by Spike Milligan.
"Look, Look" says Spike, pointing at the sky, everyone looks at the sky, Spike lowers his finger, still looking at it and says "Look, it's a finger"
This message has been edited by halucigenia, 05-05-2006 01:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ikabod, posted 05-05-2006 3:53 AM ikabod has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 56 (309491)
05-05-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by robinrohan
05-05-2006 4:41 PM


How we feel
I guess what you are trying to say is that how you feel may be a cultural bias, and that is, to a certain extent, what I was trying to get at by asking.
"Is the Western way of thinking to blame for the Evo/Creo debate?" and
"Is the Evo/Creo debate fuelled by the western way of thinking that things are objects not events and in that way we presume that objects have to be made?"
So I think that you are starting to understand the topic even though you said that you did not in message 12.
quote:
And this gets even more confusing if we deny the reality of physicality. It becomes a messy maze, too deep for me.
  —robinrohan
As you go deeper it is a messy maze, it's not a wave or a point, or on the other hand, it's both, if you look close enough

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 4:41 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by kuresu, posted 05-05-2006 7:33 PM halucigenia has replied
 Message 35 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 7:44 PM halucigenia has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 56 (309496)
05-05-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by robinrohan
05-05-2006 4:22 PM


Which one are you?
So you have a knower that cannot be biased, an emotional self that might like an idea because it makes you feel good about yourself and a logical self that can doubt this emotional self and a one that must guard against, who, the doubter, the emotional one or the knower.
Is it getting crowded in there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 05-05-2006 4:22 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 56 (310538)
05-09-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by robinrohan
05-07-2006 11:21 AM


Nothing from nothing
quote:
What I meant was that something or someone has to be eternal unless something can come from nothing.
So if something can come from nothing, then nothing needs to be eternal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by robinrohan, posted 05-07-2006 11:21 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 05-10-2006 11:23 AM halucigenia has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 56 (310544)
05-09-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by kuresu
05-05-2006 7:33 PM


Desire for something less
I don't think that the problem is the clash between technology and whatever. I think that technology, or science cannot be to blame of themselves. It is just that the Western interpretation of natural phenomenon in terms of mechanistic processes that causes the problem. For example the finding of a watch in the wilderness is not analogous to finding something that has grown naturally. But because the explanation of natural processes is often in terms of mechanisms, for example "replicating machinery", or some such inappropriate analogy people just get confused and think that all this machinery must have had to have a maker .
It used to bug me that in learning about biology they taught me about all these separate processes, whereas I saw them as all parts of the same process, so personally I have a desire for something less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by kuresu, posted 05-05-2006 7:33 PM kuresu has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 56 (310727)
05-10-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
05-07-2006 6:20 AM


Something from nothing?
Would you consider this to be something out of nothing?
quote:
The calculation of the vacuum energy in quantum field theory in terms of Feynman diagrams can be pictured as accounting for virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum.
Wiki - Vacuum Energy
I can understand that a feeling that something cannot come from nothing might lead to a belief in the existance of the eternal be it God or gods or just stuff, but if the understanding of physics allows for something out of nothing I can’t see why this would affect one's religious beliefs.
Anyway what has something from nothing actually to do with the Evo/Creo debate? Or even philosophising about the debate?
I don’t think that believing that something cannot come from nothing precludes the posibility of evolution in the same way that the belief that everything has to have a maker does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 05-07-2006 6:20 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 05-10-2006 11:24 AM halucigenia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024