Is Evolution the Work of Satan?

I think it would be more accurate to say that some aspects of Christianity and other religious traditions are consistent with the values of secular humanism. (Some religious traditions have more in common with secular humanism than others.)My point is that the values of secular humanism stand on their own, being derived from premises and observations that do not depend on any religious belief. Human tendencies toward positive collaboration, mutual support, charity and altruism stem from our senses of enlightened self-interest, affection, compassion and empathy. To the extent that these senses are diminished or overwhelmed by ignorance, selfishness, fear or mental illness, the opposite tendencies are readily evident.Both sides of the coin (the presence and absence of "good senses", and the resulting "good" and "bad" behaviors) are intrinsic to the human condition. This "duality" is logically entailed in the nature of a species that is comprised of sentient individuals whose survival depends crucially on sustaining social structures, at the expense of some normal individual impulses that must be suppressed for the sake of the group.History, experience and basic logic show us repeatedly why the "good senses" and their resulting behaviors are preferable (because they extend and improve the quality of survival for the group or species as a whole), and why behaviors stemming from ignorance, selfishness, fear or mental illness are "bad" (because their "success" is ultimately not beneficial in a broader scope, or they are patently dysfunctional).There is no need to invoke supernatural causation, let alone supernatural guidance, for any of this. It's simply "natural".Edited by Otto Tellick, : amended 2nd & 4th paragraphs to include mention of mental illness

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

In my view, that is the crux of any discussion involving the terms "omnipotence" and "omniscience". These terms end up being meaningless, and despite their frequent usage, they are in fact useless.The existence of these terms is a matter of basic linguistic structure, involving the common mechanisms of grammatical "quantification" (all, most, some, any, none, etc), which also relates to (and interacts in curious ways with) grammatical negation.These aspects of grammar, which are found in all human languages, work with normal rules of syntax and word formation, allowing people to express questions and statements about things that are not known to exist, or clearly don't exist, or simply cannot exist. Such expressions are grammatically well formed and can be understood, but they are "coherent" only in the sense that commonly known words are used in accordance with commonly known rules of grammar. Actually, it ceases to be something that makes any sense at all. In effect, once you posit the existence of an omnipotent entity, you might as well assert that it can create invisible colors, married bachelors, male wives (mothers nieces aunts sisters daughters), female husbands (fathers nephews uncles brothers sons), and so on.Any other assertions about such an entity will be equally meaningful and useful (which is to say, not at all meaningful or useful).Assertions about virgin birth and life after death are in the same vein. The difference here, it seems, is that given the linguistic capacity to express these notions, lots of people feel compelled to assign meanings to them, despite the fact that no one has any grounds to substantiate them.(Actually, some have tried to substantiate one sort of "life after death" by documenting "cases indicative of reincarnation"; but the Islamo-Christian notion of afterlife is utterly beyond substantiation, "evidence" of "saintly interventions" notwithstanding.)Edited by Otto Tellick, : removed reference to "Judeo-" notion of life after death -- it's not clear to me that the O.T. ever expressed such a notion.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

While I agree with most of what Phage0070 says, I think the part quoted above is incorrect because it ignores an important factor that is readily evident in our cultural evolution:As a general rule, there is strength and safety in numbers. A larger group of individuals acting collaboratively will generally have better chances of surviving adversity and improving the quality of life when compared to a smaller group. Also, when all individuals within the group are treated with respect and fairness, fostering a sense of self-worth, the group is stronger, more cohesive, and more successful.It follows naturally that behaviors leading to larger, stronger collaborative groups (wider acceptance of differences among individuals and subgroups, etc) will tend to succeed over those that lead to smaller groups (rejection, exclusion, denial of rights, killing, etc). In effect, natural selection favors the former behaviors, and in fact the history of human cultural evolution shows a general trend toward larger and larger collaborative groups over the ages, correlated with broader acceptance of diversity within these larger groups.Obviously, there are plenty of exceptions to the trend, and there is no guarantee against reversals of the trend. But I hold that it's wrong to attribute these exceptions and reversals to "lack of religion" (as many theists do), just as you would say it's wrong to blame them on religion (as many atheists do).The pragmatic truth of the matter is that some religious sects fully accept and practice those "good" (naturally selected) behaviors that lead to larger, stronger and more diverse collaborative groups. But frankly, I don't see this as an attribute of the majority of religions and religious believers, and that's a serious problem.Meanwhile, secular humanism, being founded on respect for individuals, aimed toward maximizing collaboration, and guided by evidence, has the essential attributes for success built in. Curiously, Mother Theresa's actions are not uniformly admired by all. Let me suggest a search on YouTube using the terms "Hitchens Theresa"; you'll find a collection of video snippets where Christopher Hitchens explains his negative assessment of the world's most famous Catholic nun. I personally wouldn't seek to defame her, but he does make some good points...In any case, my point is that Hitler's methods clearly go the wrong way in evolutionary terms, and this is easily substantiated by evidence and simple logic. It's really appalling -- in fact, insulting -- how often his name is invoked in theistic arguments against secular humanism. The same applies to invoking Stalin and other "godless" dictators. Secular humanism has nothing at all to do with these bastards.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This strikes me as a strange and improper use of "objective", especially in view of what your use of "external" is supposed to mean here (i.e. supernatural, external to observable reality, not based on evidence).The core problem with morality based on religion, whether by "revelation" or exegesis of "sacred text", is that its authority rests solely on people's credulity toward the pronouncers of moral law who proclaim they speak on God's behalf.In order for a code of morality to be objective, it must be evidence-based, and if I understand your position correctly, you don't really accept observable evidence as the primary determiner of "good" vs. "bad". This in turn would, as I see it, tend to explain your subsequent comments. I'm inclined to accept the evidence that has been presented to show how these attributes (affection, empathy, altruism) arise and spread as a natural consequence of natural processes, just as their perpetual conflict with aloofness, selfishness and greed is also natural. There's no need or compelling reason to appeal to supernatural causation for either side in this conflict -- the matter simply isn't that mysterious on close inspection. If you want to say that selfishness, greed and probably mental illness constitute a "moral code", then the phrase "Hitler's moral code" would make some sort of sense. But I see no point in extending the use of "moral code" in that way, and I would advise against it. Is it your religious belief that leads you to make this statement? You've expressed a truly pitiable point of view, bordering on pathetic, and you should seriously re-examine the ideas that have taken you in this direction.If you can't understand how genocide and enslavement (the most extreme forms of win-lose / zero-sum interaction) would ultimately fail in evolutionary competition against incorporation and collaboration (win-win / positive-sum interaction), you just aren't thinking clearly.In case I really need to connect all the dots for you: natural selection defines "success" as "growth", "diversification", and "robustness in the face of adversity". Discrimination, enslavement and mass murder are not conducive to success in those terms -- quite the contrary.Meanwhile, the things that your version of Christianity have in common with secular humanism are in fact the things that support that kind of success. I would assert that Christianity's popularity is attributable mostly to its relatively large overlap with a truly (objectively) successful "moral code", despite all its bizarre trappings (original sin, eternal damnation, etc).Let me recommend a book by Robert Wright, called "Non-Zero" -- it explains the perpetual competition between zero-sum and non-zero-sum behaviors, and demonstrates, with evidence, how and why non-zero-sum behavior is the predominant victor. It's far more objective, and more coherent, than any religion-based account of morality I've ever seen.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.