But that is what stirs the possum - the juxtaposition of two ill-defined but apparently contrary ideals. Such a thread will indeed be interminable.
2 Likes
The problem being that evolutionary biology is a scientific theory which, having displaced religion in secular culture, is nowadays held in the same regard as revealed truth used to be, but without providing any real raison d’etre other than successful propagation. The subject of ‘Evolution as a Religion’, Mary Midgely, 1985. It is related to the problem of treating naturalism as a metaphysics, i.e. ‘metaphysical naturalism’.
1 Like
But do you think a meaning crisis is held only by those people who believe in evolutionary biology? I don’t think so. I think it’s more likely a case that culture generally lacks a coherent sense of meaning, perhaps as a result of pluralism and multiple competing narratives. I can see this not just in secular communities but among Sikh, Hindu, Christian and Muslim people (I work with), who have all bought into turbo-charged forms of capitalism that seem to generate alienation and meaningless consumerism. You see exactly the same pursuit of status symbols, plastic surgery, social media gossip, influencer culture, luxury brand obsession, along with a general casserole of emptiness.
2 Likes
Right. It’s Dennett’s Universal Acid, which eats through all the containers maintained by traditional culture and value systems. Global capitalism and media, which is heavily dependent on a materialist philosophy that can be exploited to generate demand based on the myth of endless progress. It suits us to see ourselves as creatures who’s main aims are to propogate and consume. What was that counter-cultural slogan of the 60’s? ‘Consume, be silent, die.’
Given the plurality of Christian beliefs today probably not. Many Christians today believe in the separation of Church and State. Jesus, however, said to render under Caesar what is Caesar’s, but this is not so straight forward since Caesar is not just a political leader but a God. In addition, Jesus, as the king of the Jews was not just a religious leader.
[quote=“Tom_Storm, post:141, topic:1124”]
One unique feature of secularism I keep hearing about is its special negative impact on the spiritual life of humans: the “meaning crisis” …[/quote]
Well, the separation of Church and State is both a matter of freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. This means the freedom to practice what one believes rather than having an official state religion.
Depending on the viewer what may look like true Christianity to one may look look like heresy to another. This was not always the case. Before the Church Fathers attempted to create official Church doctrine Christianity was pluralistic, a matter of witnessing the indwelling of spirit, literally inspiration.
1 Like
I think you’re right; however it always seems rhetorically dangerous to attack “evolution” as an ideology, since it seems to put one in the place of attacking quite well-established scientific findings. The difficulty is that the term is often used to roll together a host of well supported and extremely speculative theses, so that evidence of how bacteria become immune to anti-biotics via selection effects somehow turns into evidence for wide-ranging theses about the nature of causality, the purposelessness of the universe, the nature of the Good, and the nature of reason itself—all through the splendid alchemy of equivocation.
It reminds me of a Chesterton quote on this from 118 years ago now:
Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.
Anyhow, IIRC Midgley’s beef with Dawkins was the biologicalization of Homo oecononimicus (which certainly does dominate evolutionary psychology). The mapping to TULIP to this paradigm is a bit interesting. We have total depravity (brute self-interest) mediated by institutional “grace.” There is also the unconditional election of the market and the “sexual marketplace” of reproduction, insomuch as there is no notion of merit at work in who is “selected” by the “invisible hand.” Grace is irresistible, since it is simply the fittest corporations, men, etc. who, by definition, survive, thus ensuring the perseverance of the saints as well, i.e., the technological ubermensch post-human eschaton. There is even theosis in the post-human transcendence, and maybe even the fires of Hell in the form of Roko’s basilisk (the future god-like AI who will resurrect and torture everyone who slowed its coming into being;a real fan favorite in some rationalist circles). The basilisk was so popular on LessWrong they had to ban it because it was giving people anxiety since it flowed from optimal game theory. But as a “Hell” it says nothing about merit or justice, only sheer power and optimization of that power, which doesn’t seem incidental.
I’m not saying the mapping predominates everywhere, just that there are some kinds of thought where it seems oddly similar.
1 Like
I think that there is truth to it, and the inverse must also be true. The so called ‘death of God’ has made religion largely secular—eroding its ground and authority.
Ever think of Christianity as analogous to the Gordian Knot?
Gordius comes to Phrygia driving an ox cart. An oracle had declared the next person who arrived driving an ox cart would be king. In gratitude Gordius and/or his son, the soon to be King Midas, dedicates the ox cart to Zeus, tying it to a post with an extremely intricate knot.
Jesus comes to Jerusalem. The Jews are awaiting a king. There are prophecies about the coming of the king. Jesus is a sacrifice dedicated to God or is himself God in one way or another, eventually determined more or less after some centuries.
The knot is Christianity, grown incredibly elaborate and complex as layer after layer of rationalizations, explanations, characteristics, rituals, many derived from pagan cults and philosophy, are added to it by apologists over the years.
There’s no Alexander to cut the knot with a sword or lifting a linchpin, alas. So many of us keep making the knot bigger and bigger adding layers or knots. Like in this thread, perhaps.
1 Like
As well as the Genetic Fallacy, there’s another fallacy worth noting. It’s known as the Argument from Fallacy, or the “Fallacy” fallacy. It’s the fallacy involved in, when an argument is shown to be fallacious, presuming that therefore, the conclusion is false.
An example, stolen from Wikipedia:
Alice: All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. Therefore, Ginger is a cat.
Bob: You have just fallaciously affirmed the consequent. You are incorrect. Therefore, Ginger is not a cat.
Alice’s argument is invalid. But it does not follow that Ginger is not a cat.
Keep this in mind when considering the consequences of an over-enthusiasm for evolution. It does not follow that evolution does not occur, and certainly not that we ought be Christian.
An apt analogy. It must have been a terrible crisis to his followers when the promised Messiah died without the promise being fulfilled.
Perhaps, although I suspect this thread could have spent less time on Christianity and more time on secularism.
What I’ve got from this so far is that secularism (as opposed to secular humanism) is a tool used to manage pluralism. It is influenced by Christianity. We’ve been unable to answer with any real precision (despite dull and tendentious historical narratives) the extent of that Christian influence. And the subsidiary question might be: does it matter?
1 Like
What makes you say that? What ‘promise’ are you referring to?
I guess he means the promise that he’d come back soon. (John? )
Frankly, and for what little it’s worth, I am of the no doubt unpopular opinion that what is secular–which I would say involves the world and how to live in it, regardless of any purported transcendent God–was initially a minor concern to Christianity. It gradually became more significant since the Kingdom of God or the apocalypse wasn’t forthcoming as promised, and the injunction that people should give up all worldly concerns and follow Jesus became less and less compelling.
So what Jesus was said to have said couldn’t be taken literally and his meaning became a matter of interpretation. Despite periodic anticipation of the imminent end of the world, always disappointed and explained away, what took place in the world became the primary concern. Very few walked away from their loved ones and responsibilities. The need to follow Jesus was deferred, to be taken up when it seemed that the world was, as the song says, going away.
1 Like
The Messiah and Paul’s heaven on Earth. The hope of a “second coming” emerged as a reaction to the promise not being fulfilled.
Setting aside zany fundamentalists and their often heretical interpretations, are they still waiting?
Yes, so far as I know. Whenever I’ve attended an Anglican service, there are always references to the Second Coming and the resurrection at some time in the future.
From the Nicene Creed: ‘He (Christ) will come again in his glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. … We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.’
If you ask about the meaning of this, the responses are usually vague.
Perennialists tend to believe that the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ was neither a political movement or the wish to overthrow Roman rule but a reference to the ‘spiritual awakening’ parallel to that found in other faith traditions. Christians on the whole reject that because it seems to undercut the exclusiveness of Christ, and the secular reject it because there’s no such thing as ‘spiritual awakening’.
I think they are but it is often is some unspecified time in the future.
1 Like
@wayfarer @fooloso4 You know, I attended 10 years of a Baptist school and had sermons five days a week, along with chapel and religious instruction weekly, and I have almost no memory of the Second Coming being part of our teaching. I’m sure it was there, but I just don’t recall it. We were a non-literalist community in Melbourne, mainly wealthy families with tertiary degrees. The focus seemed to be on Christian values such as forgiveness, acceptance, economic justice (ironically) and solidarity, the lessons of Christ’s teachings/parables, but talk about reward or heaven rarely happened. Many sincere good people no doubt, but what I remember most vividly was collecting small change for starving people in Africa whilst we simultaneously raised $3 million for a swimming pool with sports facilities.
1 Like
Nothing I can say to improve that picture. It perfectly captures us.
1 Like