We are told in school and by the media that our democratic politics are triumphant, a model to be emulated by the rest of the world. It does have many qualities, but why does the whole process seem so banal? Check out Bryan's new post Politics and Change. Here is a sampler:
"That Baha'is entirely reject these bastions of Western democracy -- the campaign, the candidate, etc. -- is the subject of some confusion from the general public. How could a system work without the soul-grinding competition of adversaries? Our current politics are based on opposition and the only alternative seems to be dictatorship. Within that question lies the key: the Baha'i system is fundamentally different, based on cooperation. The forces current in the world are disintegrating, while the Baha'i system is integrating."
-
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
First Televised Interview
The first televised interview that Barack Obama has had as president is with Al-Arabiya, an Arab news organization out of Dubai. It is cathartic to finally hear an engaging and fair minded approach to the Middle East coming from the leadership of the United States. It is an important step, it seems, in reconciling the "dissension and strife, contention, estrangement and apathy, among the loved ones of God."
A few different parts stuck out for me, this one in particular where he acknowledges the part of his Muslim Anscestory:
"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries ... the largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith – and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers – regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."
A few different parts stuck out for me, this one in particular where he acknowledges the part of his Muslim Anscestory:
"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries ... the largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith – and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers – regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."
Friday, January 16, 2009
A Baha'i and an Athiest Discuss Evolution
Over the last few days I have been involved in a discussion of the Baha'i view of evolution and spirituality with an self proclaimed athiest. It was prompted by a comment he made on Bryans post Genesis, Evolution, and Aliens. He has been kind of confrontational and I wavered on weather to engage him. I am glad I have because it has caused me to question my own beliefs in a productive way. Here is the dialogue so far. If you have something to contribute to this discussion, you should follow the link and make a comment. I will continue to repost this with any new comments made, so join in on the discussion!
Jason said...
This is a great post Bryan! I hadn't read that last quote by Abdu'l Baha in "Divine Philosophy", although it makes a lot of sense and is an exciting thought. If only we could get some fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic Darwinian's locked in a room together and have them read and discuss this until they recognized Baha'u'llah
September 1, 2008 9:41 AM
Atheist said...
WOW, guys!!! we are in the 21st century and you still dont accept the evolution and darwin???? WOWW
January 12, 2009 1:50 PM
Jason said...
Actually, the Baha'is believe in the harmony of science and religion. This includes the theories of Darwin and of evolution. We believe that evolution (the process of random mutation and natural selection) is the process by which humans eventually came into being. Where we might differ is that we believe humans, or possibly beings similar to humans, in that they have the capacity for self reflection, free will, and the development of divine attributes were destined to come about from the very beginning. Everything we see today was there potentially in the very first seeds of life and creation.
January 12, 2009 3:16 PM
Atheist said...
Hey Jason, It seems that you are not a bahai, because u dont know about this faith. Bahais dont believe in evolution and ESPECIALLY NATURAL SELECTION. Go to this website and judge:
http://www.bahai-library.org/articles/evolution.html
January 13, 2009 9:24 PM
Jason said...
Atheist,
Thank you for posting this link. You might find it interesting that this article appeared in a Baha'i journal. As Baha'is we are willing to calibrate our interpretation of spiritual teachings to new advancements in scientific discovery. I think the concept that Abdu'l Baha lays out, that we have always been potentially human, from the first single cell organism all the way up homosapien, does not contradict Darwin's notions of evolution. Instead I would argue it is a conceptual difference based upon the same reading of science.
January 13, 2009 9:57 PM
Atheist said...
How about this part that Abdulbaha says "it in the sense of progress or development within a single species, not in the meaning of the followers of Darwin, who believed that one species, by the force of natural selection alone,"
and how about this part:According to this view, the "modern" species is defined for an existing population of interbreeding organisms, by a common gene pool. For many modern biologists evolution is not the unfolding of a set of time invariant laws of nature or a God-given natural order, but evolution is believed to consist of new self-creations.(6) According to this view biological characteristics, which are not even potentially pre-existing, are assumed to be created de novo on the path of evolution. From the view point of an essentialist this position implies the evolution of species essences. Such concepts of self-creational evolution clearly contradict 'Abdu'l-Bahá's thesis that humanity mirrors the timeless names and attributes of God.
You know what you religious people are doing. you taking the scientific evidence and make them FIT with you religious ideas. In other word, you are rationalizing, you know you are wrong but dont want to admit it.
January 14, 2009 1:16 PM
Jason said...
I would agree with your statement that we are rationalizing, but I would add that we are doing it in both directions...also taking religious ideas and making them fit with scientific evidence. It is true that we attempt to harmonize science with a spiritual view of reality, a spiritual view that is based upon a faith in the existence of some kind of higher intelligence. Of course it is impossible to prove the existence of God, just like it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. To argue either side is an exercise in faith. Probably the most rational view to take given the information we have is to be agnostic.
Given that Baha'is do take a leap of faith that there is a higher intelligence which we cannot even begin to understand, we also view the universe in terms of spiritual purpose. The purpose for humans we believe is to grow spiritually and surrender ourselves to the suseptibilities of the higher intelligence. We also believe that we have developed (through physical evolution but spiritual determinism) intelligence for a reason, and to deny that faculty of reason is folly.
Baha'is believe that as humans evolve scientifically and philosophically, their conception of meaning must also adapt. For example, while Baha'is say they believe in the Bible (in addition to many other Holy books), we certainly wouldn't subscribe to the literal idea that the earth was created in seven days, or that Moses saw a literal burning bush, or that Christ physically resurrected. Christ said himself that he spoke to his followers using parables, and would speak much more plainly the next time around. This was the truth for them which gave them meaning in their lives, but a relative truth in a hierarchy of truth.
Continuing with this train of thought, Baha'is fully expect that our understanding of the universe will constantly change. Abdu'l Baha spoke as a spiritual philosopher working to understand the current scientific view of reality. We do not believe that Abdu'l Baha carried the creative word; he was not a manifestation of God (in the sense that we view the two prophet-founders of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah and the Ba'b to be). Instead we see him as a perfect example of human virtues at our stage of evolution. Somebody who interpreted the teachings of his father and gave guidlines regarding the protection, propagation, and organization of the Faith, but also somebody whose knowledge of scientific matters was limited to the evidence that everybody faced at that time.
Baha'is don't believe in the deriving of science from religion, but in the harmony. Humans are distinctly endowed with the faculties of reason which makes the scientific method the best means of advancing scientific understanding of reality. Science does a poor job however of advancing moral, ethical, and spiritual virtues. (the atom bomb is an obvious example, or the rampant materialism in our society today, the latter of which religion is often vulnerable to).
Now to the current discussion of evolution, I have to admit that much of it is over my head and I thank you for challenging me in this way, you have given me something to chew on. I would refer you to a review given of the book these two authors (whom you linked to) put out. What is interesting is that this review praises but also critizes parts of the book which present justification for Abdu'l Baha's explanations.
Here is the link:
http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/abizadeh/Bahai-Evolution.pdf
January 14, 2009 9:54 PM
Atheist said...
The other problem of Abdulbaha is that he thought evolution is a progress (that each specie is superior that the previous specie), but this is wrong. As he said the spirituality of men has progressed. but evolution is not progressing.
everything is at the same level. Humans, worms, chimps, elephants, dolphins. we are not superior to worms and worms are not superior to humans, we can not live where worms live, and worms can not live where we live. so nobody is superior.
also, people think that we used to be apes, but no, we evolved from apes as apes did evolve. (we are called "late apes")
Abdulbaha was thinking of evolution as a hierarchy, but again he was wrong, nothing goes up the hierarchy, but they evolve in the same level.
Also, bahais tried to make science and religion go hand in hand, but couldn't. one example is the theory of evolution that we discussed and the other one is homosexuality. Shoghi efandi really did not do a good job discussing that point.
January 15, 2009 9:18 PM
Atheist said...
lets look at the original quote from Abdulbaha about evolution:
"[F]rom the beginning of man's existence he is a distinct species."
Ok, we have fossils that indicate that man has evolved from apes. so he is not a distinct specie.
Also he said FROM THE BEGINNING, what does that mean? the beginning of the universe? the beginning of life?
lets continue:
"In the same way, the embryo of man in the womb of the mother was at first in a strange form; then this body passes from shape to shape, from state to state, from form to form, until it appears in utmost beauty and perfection."
We know that we have not evolved to be beautiful and perfect, we evolved to survive, not for beauty.
"But even when in the womb of the mother and in this strange form, entirely different from his present form and figure, he is the embryo of the superior species, and not of the animal; his species and essence undergo no change."
As i said in my previous point we are not superior. secondly, he is comparing evolution to fetus in the womb. it is like comparing a bridge and the cement that the bridge is made of. the fetus in the womb is the result of the evolution (the bridge) but it is not the evolution (the cement)
"Now, admitting that the traces of organs which have disappeared actually exist, this is not a proof of the impermanence and the non-originality of the species. At the most it proves that the form, and fashion, and the organs of man have progressed."
Again, he is making the mistake that evolution is a hierarchy and we progress to get to the top. no, not at all, evolution does not have a plan for future, it is not goal directed and it is not a progress. (this is one of the misconceptions that Darwin was concerned about, Darwin knew people would think that way)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2
"Man was always a distinct species, a man, not an animal."
Yes, we are an animal and we should be proud of that. we are Late-apes. we evolved from animals, like other animals, so we are an animal.
"So, if the embryo of man in the womb of the mother passes from one form to another, so that the second form in no way resembles the first, is this a proof that the species has changed? that it was at first an animal, and that its organs progressed and developed until it became a man? No indeed! How puerile and unfounded is this idea and this thought! For the proof of the originality of the human species, and of the permanency of the nature of man, is clear and evident.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 300)"
this sentence makes me laugh:"How PUERILE and unfounded is this idea and this thought!"
2 reasons:
1. he is making fun of Darwin
2. he said this Idea and Thought, not a theory, so he was not recognizing that in future Darwin's theory will be the best proven theories. (im wondering why God didn't tell him or help him?!)
January 15, 2009 9:39 PM
Jason said...
On your last point...As I said before, Baha'is respect the scientific process as an independent branch of human development. Abdu'l Baha was using the science available at the time to make some comments about the spiritual nature of humans. His intention was not to give us a science lesson, or to establish scientific truths...that wouldn't be his funtion, his funtion was the ethical, moral, social, and spiritual guidance of the Baha'i community at that time. I think we can both obtain from Abdu'l Baha's writings that he believed in the physical process of evolution. I grant that the idea of man always as a distinct species would not make sense if said in its current context. It would imply that there isn't common ancestory...science tells us that there is so I agree with it. I am not quite sure what Abdu'l Baha meant by that, it is possible that by 'species', he meant something spiritual or allegorical, not scientific...Nevertheless, even given the current theory of evolution, I would disagree that it invalidates the possible existence of God. Of course evolution was not deterministic, humans were not destined to have the exact physical features that they do today. Instead I would argue that it was stochastic, meaning it could have gone in many different ways with a very high probability that some species would develop that had the same spiritual capacities of humans.
This leads me to your other point about the heirarchy of kingdoms. Of course in one sense we are all on the same level, we all branched out and and we have all carved out a particular niche. On the other hand, what other species has the capacity for self reflection, for the capacity of objectivity, for unimaginable horror and unimaginable beauty? Humans have the capacity to express almost any attribute. Can you say that of any other species? Every species has certain spiritual capacities, but do they have them all?
This capacity is the reason Baha'is believe that true human purpose is to grow spiritually and thereby reflect the incredible majesty of the universe. We are uniquely capable of doing this (at least on this planet, you should peruse what Baha'u'llah says about potential life on other planets).
Science can explain human evolution but it cannot explain why. If humans feel lack of purpose in their lives, they become depressed and even suicidal. What makes you think that a universe this expansive and majestic could operate without a higher purpose? What makes you an athiest as opposed to an agnostic? I understand why you are frustrated with religion. We believe not only that there is a God, but that it has made itself known unto humans. That's a big claim. It is equally as big of a claim to say that there is no God at all.
We are both taking leaps of faith in our discussion, so lets keep it going.
Da Bank said...
Alláh'u'Abhá, Atheist, I thought I'd add to the discussion here. I certainly applaud your knowledge and your desire to promote understanding of the wonderful discoveries science has made possible, especially in relation to the distortions that past religious hierarchies have tried to perpetuate (for example the persecution of scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo by the Christian clergy 400 years ago).Regarding your criticisms of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's discussion of evolution, I think it would be helpful for you to read his writings, on many topics, more extensively, so you can be more familiar with the style and vocabulary he uses. Many of the objections you've raised seem to me to be a result of differences between what 'Abdu'l'Bahá meant by a word, writing 100 years ago, and the meaning we give to that word today. For example, you rightly point out that, from a material or scientific viewpoint, organisms (including humans) are not inherently superior or inferior to each other - a worm and a human being are equal in that they are both biological organisms, each having evolved to best adapt to the conditions of the environment in which it lives, as are all organisms. Biologically, worms and humans are both classified as 'animals', where the modern meaning of this term is an organism that is multicellular, and whose cells have mitochondria and lack cell walls. This applies equally to worms and humans. However, at the time 'Abdu'l-Bahá was writing, the term 'animal' was part of an older view of classification, where animals are those organisms that are capable of movement, but do not possess self-awareness or intelligence - they were part of a more limited division of the natural world into mineral (the inorganic), vegetable (organisms not capable of movement), animal (capable of movement), and man (possessing self-awareness and intelligence). In this classification, each division is part of a hierarchy from 'most inferior' (mineral) to 'most superior' (man). This is the meaning of the term 'animal' as used by 'Abdu'l-Bahá when speaking to his audiences 100 years ago, while now, of course, we have a different understanding of the natural world, and a different definition of the term 'animal'. So, to sum up, it would help your argument to reflect upon how those terms and assertions which 'Abdu'l-Bahá makes that you object to were intended for audiences of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and how we understand those terms and assertions today. I look forward to more discussion with you.
January 18, 2009 9:32 AM
rsiegel said...
I appreciate the following thoughtfully-written essay on this topic: http://www.onecountry.org/e193/e19302as_Perspective_Evolution.html
6:15 PM
Jason said...
This is a great post Bryan! I hadn't read that last quote by Abdu'l Baha in "Divine Philosophy", although it makes a lot of sense and is an exciting thought. If only we could get some fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic Darwinian's locked in a room together and have them read and discuss this until they recognized Baha'u'llah
September 1, 2008 9:41 AM
Atheist said...
WOW, guys!!! we are in the 21st century and you still dont accept the evolution and darwin???? WOWW
January 12, 2009 1:50 PM
Jason said...
Actually, the Baha'is believe in the harmony of science and religion. This includes the theories of Darwin and of evolution. We believe that evolution (the process of random mutation and natural selection) is the process by which humans eventually came into being. Where we might differ is that we believe humans, or possibly beings similar to humans, in that they have the capacity for self reflection, free will, and the development of divine attributes were destined to come about from the very beginning. Everything we see today was there potentially in the very first seeds of life and creation.
January 12, 2009 3:16 PM
Atheist said...
Hey Jason, It seems that you are not a bahai, because u dont know about this faith. Bahais dont believe in evolution and ESPECIALLY NATURAL SELECTION. Go to this website and judge:
http://www.bahai-library.org/articles/evolution.html
January 13, 2009 9:24 PM
Jason said...
Atheist,
Thank you for posting this link. You might find it interesting that this article appeared in a Baha'i journal. As Baha'is we are willing to calibrate our interpretation of spiritual teachings to new advancements in scientific discovery. I think the concept that Abdu'l Baha lays out, that we have always been potentially human, from the first single cell organism all the way up homosapien, does not contradict Darwin's notions of evolution. Instead I would argue it is a conceptual difference based upon the same reading of science.
January 13, 2009 9:57 PM
Atheist said...
How about this part that Abdulbaha says "it in the sense of progress or development within a single species, not in the meaning of the followers of Darwin, who believed that one species, by the force of natural selection alone,"
and how about this part:According to this view, the "modern" species is defined for an existing population of interbreeding organisms, by a common gene pool. For many modern biologists evolution is not the unfolding of a set of time invariant laws of nature or a God-given natural order, but evolution is believed to consist of new self-creations.(6) According to this view biological characteristics, which are not even potentially pre-existing, are assumed to be created de novo on the path of evolution. From the view point of an essentialist this position implies the evolution of species essences. Such concepts of self-creational evolution clearly contradict 'Abdu'l-Bahá's thesis that humanity mirrors the timeless names and attributes of God.
You know what you religious people are doing. you taking the scientific evidence and make them FIT with you religious ideas. In other word, you are rationalizing, you know you are wrong but dont want to admit it.
January 14, 2009 1:16 PM
Jason said...
I would agree with your statement that we are rationalizing, but I would add that we are doing it in both directions...also taking religious ideas and making them fit with scientific evidence. It is true that we attempt to harmonize science with a spiritual view of reality, a spiritual view that is based upon a faith in the existence of some kind of higher intelligence. Of course it is impossible to prove the existence of God, just like it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. To argue either side is an exercise in faith. Probably the most rational view to take given the information we have is to be agnostic.
Given that Baha'is do take a leap of faith that there is a higher intelligence which we cannot even begin to understand, we also view the universe in terms of spiritual purpose. The purpose for humans we believe is to grow spiritually and surrender ourselves to the suseptibilities of the higher intelligence. We also believe that we have developed (through physical evolution but spiritual determinism) intelligence for a reason, and to deny that faculty of reason is folly.
Baha'is believe that as humans evolve scientifically and philosophically, their conception of meaning must also adapt. For example, while Baha'is say they believe in the Bible (in addition to many other Holy books), we certainly wouldn't subscribe to the literal idea that the earth was created in seven days, or that Moses saw a literal burning bush, or that Christ physically resurrected. Christ said himself that he spoke to his followers using parables, and would speak much more plainly the next time around. This was the truth for them which gave them meaning in their lives, but a relative truth in a hierarchy of truth.
Continuing with this train of thought, Baha'is fully expect that our understanding of the universe will constantly change. Abdu'l Baha spoke as a spiritual philosopher working to understand the current scientific view of reality. We do not believe that Abdu'l Baha carried the creative word; he was not a manifestation of God (in the sense that we view the two prophet-founders of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah and the Ba'b to be). Instead we see him as a perfect example of human virtues at our stage of evolution. Somebody who interpreted the teachings of his father and gave guidlines regarding the protection, propagation, and organization of the Faith, but also somebody whose knowledge of scientific matters was limited to the evidence that everybody faced at that time.
Baha'is don't believe in the deriving of science from religion, but in the harmony. Humans are distinctly endowed with the faculties of reason which makes the scientific method the best means of advancing scientific understanding of reality. Science does a poor job however of advancing moral, ethical, and spiritual virtues. (the atom bomb is an obvious example, or the rampant materialism in our society today, the latter of which religion is often vulnerable to).
Now to the current discussion of evolution, I have to admit that much of it is over my head and I thank you for challenging me in this way, you have given me something to chew on. I would refer you to a review given of the book these two authors (whom you linked to) put out. What is interesting is that this review praises but also critizes parts of the book which present justification for Abdu'l Baha's explanations.
Here is the link:
http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/abizadeh/Bahai-Evolution.pdf
January 14, 2009 9:54 PM
Atheist said...
The other problem of Abdulbaha is that he thought evolution is a progress (that each specie is superior that the previous specie), but this is wrong. As he said the spirituality of men has progressed. but evolution is not progressing.
everything is at the same level. Humans, worms, chimps, elephants, dolphins. we are not superior to worms and worms are not superior to humans, we can not live where worms live, and worms can not live where we live. so nobody is superior.
also, people think that we used to be apes, but no, we evolved from apes as apes did evolve. (we are called "late apes")
Abdulbaha was thinking of evolution as a hierarchy, but again he was wrong, nothing goes up the hierarchy, but they evolve in the same level.
Also, bahais tried to make science and religion go hand in hand, but couldn't. one example is the theory of evolution that we discussed and the other one is homosexuality. Shoghi efandi really did not do a good job discussing that point.
January 15, 2009 9:18 PM
Atheist said...
lets look at the original quote from Abdulbaha about evolution:
"[F]rom the beginning of man's existence he is a distinct species."
Ok, we have fossils that indicate that man has evolved from apes. so he is not a distinct specie.
Also he said FROM THE BEGINNING, what does that mean? the beginning of the universe? the beginning of life?
lets continue:
"In the same way, the embryo of man in the womb of the mother was at first in a strange form; then this body passes from shape to shape, from state to state, from form to form, until it appears in utmost beauty and perfection."
We know that we have not evolved to be beautiful and perfect, we evolved to survive, not for beauty.
"But even when in the womb of the mother and in this strange form, entirely different from his present form and figure, he is the embryo of the superior species, and not of the animal; his species and essence undergo no change."
As i said in my previous point we are not superior. secondly, he is comparing evolution to fetus in the womb. it is like comparing a bridge and the cement that the bridge is made of. the fetus in the womb is the result of the evolution (the bridge) but it is not the evolution (the cement)
"Now, admitting that the traces of organs which have disappeared actually exist, this is not a proof of the impermanence and the non-originality of the species. At the most it proves that the form, and fashion, and the organs of man have progressed."
Again, he is making the mistake that evolution is a hierarchy and we progress to get to the top. no, not at all, evolution does not have a plan for future, it is not goal directed and it is not a progress. (this is one of the misconceptions that Darwin was concerned about, Darwin knew people would think that way)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2
"Man was always a distinct species, a man, not an animal."
Yes, we are an animal and we should be proud of that. we are Late-apes. we evolved from animals, like other animals, so we are an animal.
"So, if the embryo of man in the womb of the mother passes from one form to another, so that the second form in no way resembles the first, is this a proof that the species has changed? that it was at first an animal, and that its organs progressed and developed until it became a man? No indeed! How puerile and unfounded is this idea and this thought! For the proof of the originality of the human species, and of the permanency of the nature of man, is clear and evident.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 300)"
this sentence makes me laugh:"How PUERILE and unfounded is this idea and this thought!"
2 reasons:
1. he is making fun of Darwin
2. he said this Idea and Thought, not a theory, so he was not recognizing that in future Darwin's theory will be the best proven theories. (im wondering why God didn't tell him or help him?!)
January 15, 2009 9:39 PM
Jason said...
On your last point...As I said before, Baha'is respect the scientific process as an independent branch of human development. Abdu'l Baha was using the science available at the time to make some comments about the spiritual nature of humans. His intention was not to give us a science lesson, or to establish scientific truths...that wouldn't be his funtion, his funtion was the ethical, moral, social, and spiritual guidance of the Baha'i community at that time. I think we can both obtain from Abdu'l Baha's writings that he believed in the physical process of evolution. I grant that the idea of man always as a distinct species would not make sense if said in its current context. It would imply that there isn't common ancestory...science tells us that there is so I agree with it. I am not quite sure what Abdu'l Baha meant by that, it is possible that by 'species', he meant something spiritual or allegorical, not scientific...Nevertheless, even given the current theory of evolution, I would disagree that it invalidates the possible existence of God. Of course evolution was not deterministic, humans were not destined to have the exact physical features that they do today. Instead I would argue that it was stochastic, meaning it could have gone in many different ways with a very high probability that some species would develop that had the same spiritual capacities of humans.
This leads me to your other point about the heirarchy of kingdoms. Of course in one sense we are all on the same level, we all branched out and and we have all carved out a particular niche. On the other hand, what other species has the capacity for self reflection, for the capacity of objectivity, for unimaginable horror and unimaginable beauty? Humans have the capacity to express almost any attribute. Can you say that of any other species? Every species has certain spiritual capacities, but do they have them all?
This capacity is the reason Baha'is believe that true human purpose is to grow spiritually and thereby reflect the incredible majesty of the universe. We are uniquely capable of doing this (at least on this planet, you should peruse what Baha'u'llah says about potential life on other planets).
Science can explain human evolution but it cannot explain why. If humans feel lack of purpose in their lives, they become depressed and even suicidal. What makes you think that a universe this expansive and majestic could operate without a higher purpose? What makes you an athiest as opposed to an agnostic? I understand why you are frustrated with religion. We believe not only that there is a God, but that it has made itself known unto humans. That's a big claim. It is equally as big of a claim to say that there is no God at all.
We are both taking leaps of faith in our discussion, so lets keep it going.
Da Bank said...
Alláh'u'Abhá, Atheist, I thought I'd add to the discussion here. I certainly applaud your knowledge and your desire to promote understanding of the wonderful discoveries science has made possible, especially in relation to the distortions that past religious hierarchies have tried to perpetuate (for example the persecution of scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo by the Christian clergy 400 years ago).Regarding your criticisms of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's discussion of evolution, I think it would be helpful for you to read his writings, on many topics, more extensively, so you can be more familiar with the style and vocabulary he uses. Many of the objections you've raised seem to me to be a result of differences between what 'Abdu'l'Bahá meant by a word, writing 100 years ago, and the meaning we give to that word today. For example, you rightly point out that, from a material or scientific viewpoint, organisms (including humans) are not inherently superior or inferior to each other - a worm and a human being are equal in that they are both biological organisms, each having evolved to best adapt to the conditions of the environment in which it lives, as are all organisms. Biologically, worms and humans are both classified as 'animals', where the modern meaning of this term is an organism that is multicellular, and whose cells have mitochondria and lack cell walls. This applies equally to worms and humans. However, at the time 'Abdu'l-Bahá was writing, the term 'animal' was part of an older view of classification, where animals are those organisms that are capable of movement, but do not possess self-awareness or intelligence - they were part of a more limited division of the natural world into mineral (the inorganic), vegetable (organisms not capable of movement), animal (capable of movement), and man (possessing self-awareness and intelligence). In this classification, each division is part of a hierarchy from 'most inferior' (mineral) to 'most superior' (man). This is the meaning of the term 'animal' as used by 'Abdu'l-Bahá when speaking to his audiences 100 years ago, while now, of course, we have a different understanding of the natural world, and a different definition of the term 'animal'. So, to sum up, it would help your argument to reflect upon how those terms and assertions which 'Abdu'l-Bahá makes that you object to were intended for audiences of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and how we understand those terms and assertions today. I look forward to more discussion with you.
January 18, 2009 9:32 AM
rsiegel said...
I appreciate the following thoughtfully-written essay on this topic: http://www.onecountry.org/e193/e19302as_Perspective_Evolution.html
6:15 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)