Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 14:39:41 EDT

  • Next message: allenroy: "Re: Questions to Allen Roy"

    In a message dated 9/26/03 9:20:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

    > Granted the Darwinians have the edge because of past validation in simple
    > organisms, until it can do the hard science and describe a plausible
    > evolutionary path to some complex systems, it can't make a firm assertion at
    > completeness.

    No one can make a "firm assertion at completeness" - and it is these kinds of
    open ended and poorly defined phrases that mar your remarks and make them

    Until you've read MacDonald on Judaism you cannot make any definitive
    statements about Darwinian evolution and religion.

    The preview on the inside cover of Darwin’s Cathedral reads: “One of the
    great intellectual battles of modern times is between evolution and religion.
    Until now, they’ve been considered completely irreconcilable theories of
    origin and existence.David Sloan Wilson’s Darwin’s Cathedral takes the radical
    step of joining the two, in the process proposing an evolutionary theory of
    religion that shakes both evolutionary biology and social theory at their
    foundations.The key, argues Wilson, is to think of society as an organism, an old idea
    that has received new life based on recent developments in evolutionary
    biology. If society is an organism can we then think of morality and religion as
    biologically and culturally evolved adaptations that enable human groups to
    function as single units rather than mere collections of individuals?” David Sloan
    Wilson says we can. In his introduction, titled Church as Organism, Wilson
    writes, “The purpose of this book is to treat the organismic concept of
    religious groups as a serious scientific hypothesis....”1

    From the review:

    Wilson is resurrecting the organismic concept of religious groups, but in
    this particular instance, his case is woefully understated.Though he has cited
    the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald four times,he gives no indication
    that MacDonald in three volumes has brilliantly elucidated the evolutionary
    strategy of Judaism. Unfortunately, just as the organismic concept of religious
    groups, functionalism and Lansing’s work on the temple system of Bali have all
    suffered from the demise of group selection; MacDonald’s prodigious effort
    has not received the public accolades it so richly deserves. Suffice it to say
    that this American professor, in true American style, has leveled the playing
    field by providing equal opportunity strategizing for all. A former tribal
    possession is rendered comprehensible and accessible to all the peoples of the
    world. Do you remember Wilson’s prediction? If human groups “can be rigorously
    shown to function as adaptive units, that will be a major scientific

    It has already been done.

    Once human groups were shown to function as adaptive units, and IQ
    differntials between Jewish and non-Jewish populations were dicovered, the point became
    moot. The higher IQ mean is a result of higher selection stresses coming from
    - that's right - religious motivation impacting the genotype. darwinian
    evolution is not only validated, it is religiously validated.

    No need to respond.

    rich faussette

    other remarks I made in response to a few of steve's musings that were in

    > That should be enough.  I know it sounds like I'm just trying to be
    > obnoxious but that's not it at all.  It was around this very issue that I
    > came to reject the "concrete" idea of the Christ.  That does not, however,
    > mean I reject the symbol of the incarnation, cross and resurrection.  Can
    > Christianity survive without a concrete Christ?
    > Steve Petermann

    This is a non-issue - see logic below.   The question can Christianity
    survive without a concrete Christ? requires clarification. What is meant by

    There is one salvific scheme 'period' if indeed you are talking about the
    self sacrifice. If you're not talking about the self sacrifice, you're not
    talking about religion anyway.

    The ontology of the self sacrifice is a redemption available to any self
    conscious life form with free will.  That's not a metaphor. It's in the vedas,
    Buddhism, the OT and the NT

    rich faussette

    > So when does free will in one of the life forms occur?
    > Steve Petermann

    When self conscious decisions are made.

    Paper available upon request

    rich faussette

    > Can
    > there only be one Christ per planet? Do you see how ridiculous this line of
    > thinking becomes?
    > In the past religions could avoid these types of thought experiments but I
    > don't thing they can now.  If a theology is supposed to be systematic, it
    > cannot avoid addressing these types of questions if it is to be considered
    > serious.
    > Steve Petermann

         It's hard to take Steve seriously. His fragility is based on a
    supposition. That when metaphysics is trashed the religion goes with it, the baby with
    the bath water. Ontology is the state of being, and an ontology on alpha
    centauri is ontology just the same. Jesus Christ made a demonstration of his life
    an ontological demonstration. If such an act were  to be perpretrated
    elsewhere, let's simply hope there would be aspostles around to recognize it for what
    it was and spread the word to those heathens among the stars.
    With all the studies being done on religion, like Wilson's or Burkett's or
    MacDonald's or Colinvaux's you'd think that anyone holding a position contrary
    to a religious one would  stop attacking the metaphysics and delve into the
    religion from a scientific  perspective.
    when you watch star trek and kirk says  -  the one for the many, the many for
    the one - that's the self sacrifice - that's religion.

    rich faussette writes:

    > The crux for Christianity in these reasonable thought experiments is, if
    > Jesus is the universal, one time only, unique event for the salvation of the
    > universe are we to expect the possibly millions, or trillions of other life
    > forms to accept an earthly human as their savior?  Does this sound
    > reasonable or must we rethink Christology in more metaphoric terms?

    The ontology of the self sacrifice is a redemption available to any self
    conscious life form that displays free will.  That's not a metaphor. writes:

    > You presume too much.  I attended the same seminary as George Murphy. My
    > mentor in Christian theology was Paul Tillich. My motives are varied but one
    > is not to <shake up the christians>.  I have a great affinity for
    > Christianity.  I just think it must change in order to be viable for the
    > future.  The best way to refine one's own position is to meet the challenge
    > of opposing views.  One doesn't grow arguing with the choir.

    I presume nothing.Your argument regarding ETs is ontologically irrelevant
    since any sentient being is subject to ontology. Tillich's The Courage to Be was
    my intro to ontology but that doesn't help or hurt my arguments, nor does his
    mentoring you help or hurt yours, although in this specific case, you've
    shortchanged ontology by mistakenly limiting ontology to human beings rather than
    sentient beings. Human beings only "fell" when they developed free will and
    loosened the bonds of instinct. Any sentient being undergoing the same process
    has to be phenotypically 'redeemed' via right behavior since developing free
    will is also the very development of the ability to err or  "sin."

    rich faussette


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 14:40:16 EDT