Wright, an agnostic evolutionary biologist argues that the brotherly love of the Bible was a social revolution arising from utilitarian impulses.
This is a common argument among evolutionary biologists, but Wright puts an interesting spin on it while trying to sell his theory to the religiously inclined
"And if history naturally produces moral insight—however mundane the machinery that mediates its articulation—then maybe some overarching purpose is built into the human endeavor after all."
It goes on to view St. Paul's preaching in this light.
"Why all the kin talk? Because Paul wasn’t satisfied to just have a congregation in Corinth; he wanted to set up franchises—congregations of Jesus followers—in cities across the Roman Empire. These imperial aspirations, it turns out, infused Paul’s preaching with an emphasis on brotherly love that it might never have acquired had Paul been content to run a single mom-and-pop store"
I think he overreaches in his argument that it wasn't so much Jesus that preached brotherly love, but Paul and other followers who taught it in order to be more successful with the Jesus franchise. It also belittles Paul's profound religious inspiration that the Jewish identity of distinctiveness was not as important as the new Christ spirit which made everbody equal and the community better because of their diversity.
The essay eventually leads to his final argument that in today's world, pragmatism should convince people of all faiths to embrace a sense of universal brotherhood.
"For all three Abrahamic faiths, then, tolerance and even amity across ethnic and national bounds have a way of emerging as a product of utility; when you can do well by doing good, doing good can acquire a scriptural foundation. This flexibility is heartening for those who believe that, in a highly globalized and interdependent world, the vast majority of people in all three Abrahamic faiths have more to gain through peaceful coexistence and cooperation than through intolerance and violence. If ancient Abrahamics could pen laudable scriptures that were in their enlightened self-interest, then maybe modern Abrahamics can choose to emphasize those same scriptures when it’s in their interest.
And if some people find it dispiriting that moral good should emerge from self-interest, maybe they should think again. At least, the Abrahamics among them should think again. The Hebrew Bible, considered a holy text by all three Abrahamic faiths, sees the pragmatic value of virtue as itself part of divine design."
While I agree with the ends, again, I think it is shallow to present this case as an appeal to more narrow self interests. Humans have the capacity to not just tolerate, but actively embrace those of a different background. I am not here to argue whether these religions were divinely inspired, a result of psychological and social need, or both. But it does seem to me, based upon his argument, that if the current great religions cannot get out of their shell and embrace universal unity in diversity, then either a new pragmatic moral ethos, or a new more progresssive revelation is needed. I believe that they both already exist in a highly coherant framework within the Baha'i Faith.
-
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Thursday, May 28, 2009
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
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Being and Empowerment: Introduction
(This is the rough beginning of what I hope will be the introduction of a long essay spoken about in the essay blog. Most of the research will be documented there but I will be posting chapters and paragraphs here. I would love some feedback on the content and suggestions for other literary sources to be used.)
I have been thinking about the social model of personal and community development envisioned in the Baha'i community. It is becoming more and more apparent that the unity we envision will only come about when each of us take ownership of our potential and responsibility to the process. There will be no passive observers in the transformation.
For many it is challenging to be around large crowds of people. There is an inverse relationship between the number of people at a gathering and the quality of interaction that ensues. At a certain point one can feel completely isolated. In the Baha'i community, there has been a significant shift in the past few years to hold activities in peoples homes instead of a centralized location. These activities are no longer events in which a few perform and the rest spectate. Instead, everything is viewed as a process of building capacity within ourselves and the community. Being a Baha'i means actively working to overcome the divisions which plague our society, not standing in the larger and larger rooms together until the whole world is enclosed.
All too often we have been content with a superficial unity reflected in a type of large group mingling. In the dominance of the crowd the real potential and vulnerabilities of people are neglected, and hence we become passive observers to an evanescent impulse. Thus, as Paulo Freire would conceptualize it, we are like banks in which those who speak eloquently and can dominate a discussion deposit their wisdom as the rest of us save it up. This is how most religion today operates, with the members coming a few times a month to "do the church thing", without reflecting on how it relates to their lives and institutions.
We must realize that we have been given the spiritual tools and the dignity to realize the change within our hearts and to build these new divine institutions with our own hands. A Baha'i study circle stands as a model of engaging people of very different bearings in a singular study of spiritual human potential, while at the same time providing the flexibility of dialogue and independent thought. In each study course, a new practice is introduced which builds capacity for service to the community. By completing the last study course people are trained to bring along others through this process.
Spiritual empowerment requires an understanding of being itself and the process of a self-reflection and spiritualization. As this concept is investigated we can begin to define its relevance in a collective process to create real change in the world. The question of being has been a preoccupation of philosophers and religionists for quite some time. Martin Heidegger devoted his whole philosophical career to exploring this question, while Paulo Freire identified the "humanization" of being as a prerequisite to social transformation. This essay attempts to explore the historical thinking on being and community empowerment and place in a spiritual context using the Baha'i institute process as a model.
I have been thinking about the social model of personal and community development envisioned in the Baha'i community. It is becoming more and more apparent that the unity we envision will only come about when each of us take ownership of our potential and responsibility to the process. There will be no passive observers in the transformation.
For many it is challenging to be around large crowds of people. There is an inverse relationship between the number of people at a gathering and the quality of interaction that ensues. At a certain point one can feel completely isolated. In the Baha'i community, there has been a significant shift in the past few years to hold activities in peoples homes instead of a centralized location. These activities are no longer events in which a few perform and the rest spectate. Instead, everything is viewed as a process of building capacity within ourselves and the community. Being a Baha'i means actively working to overcome the divisions which plague our society, not standing in the larger and larger rooms together until the whole world is enclosed.
All too often we have been content with a superficial unity reflected in a type of large group mingling. In the dominance of the crowd the real potential and vulnerabilities of people are neglected, and hence we become passive observers to an evanescent impulse. Thus, as Paulo Freire would conceptualize it, we are like banks in which those who speak eloquently and can dominate a discussion deposit their wisdom as the rest of us save it up. This is how most religion today operates, with the members coming a few times a month to "do the church thing", without reflecting on how it relates to their lives and institutions.
We must realize that we have been given the spiritual tools and the dignity to realize the change within our hearts and to build these new divine institutions with our own hands. A Baha'i study circle stands as a model of engaging people of very different bearings in a singular study of spiritual human potential, while at the same time providing the flexibility of dialogue and independent thought. In each study course, a new practice is introduced which builds capacity for service to the community. By completing the last study course people are trained to bring along others through this process.
Spiritual empowerment requires an understanding of being itself and the process of a self-reflection and spiritualization. As this concept is investigated we can begin to define its relevance in a collective process to create real change in the world. The question of being has been a preoccupation of philosophers and religionists for quite some time. Martin Heidegger devoted his whole philosophical career to exploring this question, while Paulo Freire identified the "humanization" of being as a prerequisite to social transformation. This essay attempts to explore the historical thinking on being and community empowerment and place in a spiritual context using the Baha'i institute process as a model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)