Evolutionary Christianity

[minsocal]

I can believe a link between Searle & Bourdieu as Bourdieu cited him on occasion. I'm doubtful significant Jungian influence survived the journey, however.

 

The Damasio book looks interesting, though. Thanks.

 

Hope you get a chance to read Damasio. He is a leading figure in the study of human emotions. The connection between Jung and Searle is through Kant. I extracted this from Wikipedia regarding Kant's influence:

 

"Virtually all later Western Philosophy including: Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Peirce, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Cassirer, Habermas, Rawls, Chomsky, Nozick, Popper, Kierkegaard, Jung, Searle, Foucault, Deleuze, Arendt, Gentile, Jaspers, Bergson, Ørsted, Ayer, Emerson, Weininger, Strawson, Strauss, Putnam, McDowell, Durkheim, Chomsky."

 

Myron

 

edited to add: Kant is directly adressed in Whitehead.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Yeah, Kant is arguably the Kevin Bacon of philosophy. Everybody is connected to him in 6 steps or less... usually less.

 

I know Whitehead (and process thought in general) isn't a big fan of Kant.

 

Interestingly, one of the common complaints about Karl Barth by conservative theologians is that his epistemology is informed by Kant. Their problem with this is that Kant's epistemology is too subjective for them, as people like Van Til argue for a strong foundationalist stance that proves Christianity. I'd imagine many people on this board would also criticize Barth for relying on Kant, but for... slightly different reasons.

 

The process thought I've read (I have 1 book by Cobb and one by Griffin, and I read both several years ago now) seems like an interesting and consistent metaphysics to me. I've wondered if it and Barth can be blended, or if Barth is too strongly linked to (a heavily modified) Kantianism. This is more idle talk than anything.

 

At any rate... emotions are another thing sociology generally does poorly. We're better at rationality (however defined) and transcendent meaning. So maybe I really should read Damasio

[minsocal]

There is considerable confusion concerning Jung and his theory of archetypes. Over the years I have collected no less than 30 definitions used by Jung to describe archetypes. By far the simplest example appears late in his career when he equates archetypes with "aptitudes".

 

“aptitude n. Suitability, natural ability, or capacity to learn; especially (in psychology) potential rather than existing capacity to perform some function, whether physical, mental, or a combination of the two ... (Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, 2001).”

 

Earlier in his career, Jung calls archetypes "... inborn forms of “intuition”, namely the archetypes of perception and apprehension ...". This is very Kantian. Pinker (2002) suggests that this is verifiable, at least to some degree.

 

In Rationalty in Action (Searle, 2001), John Searle speaks of rationalty as an innate capacity.

 

Sooo many examples and one hand to type with.

 

Myron

[rivanna]

Sorry about the hand problem– that must be difficult.

I just wanted to recommend Diarmuid O’Murchu’s audio, and his website, seems like one of the best articulations of EC -- though I haven’t seen any of his books. He somehow keeps the personal element alive. Like others he was deeply influenced by Teilhard de Chardin. From sections of his site--

 

Christian Life I - “Jesus did not come to rescue or redeem us – there is nothing from which we need to be rescued, other than our own patriarchal dysfunctionality. Jesus, along with the incarnational figures of the other great religions, affirms and celebrates all we have achieved throughout our evolutionary journey. He embodies and points us in the direction of our next evolutionary leap. It is the humanity of Jesus that is all important, not his divinity: the wholeness that Jesus models for us is not in the power of his death, but in the power of the way he lived Life – so radical, original and inspiring. And central to this new way of being human is the call to work for right relationships and the building of faith communities based on love and justice. Relational wholeness rather than individual prowess is the goal to which we are all called. Finally, Jesus serves as a power not to be imitated, but rather as an empowerer who can liberate us to help build up that new world order...” Diarmuid is optimistic about technology’s possibilities, but also says that we need to befriend meaningful suffering, that trying to get rid of evil often tends to cause more evil.

 

Christian Life II - Diarmuid calls for a more accurate translation of kingdom of God, as ‘companionship of empowerment.’ “Whereas Kingdom denotes royal power and domination, privilege, exclusion and hierarchical control, the feminine versions used by Jesus denote something much more egalitarian and liberating, a quality of leadership that enables others to take the next step.”

 

Spirituality I – excellent discussion of the Goddess - quotes Sam Keen, “The Goddess since her historical dethronement has remained alive and well. And continues to exert power from deep in the hidden recesses of the human psyche.”

 

Adult Faith Development –among other things, he advocates shifting language away from childlike obedience/ dependence on God the Father and Mother Church.

 

Cosmic Walk -- analyzes evolution step by step, ending with 1969 when “Humans visit the moon for the first time, and see Earth as a blue-white marble. This iconic image has changed our perceptions forever, inviting us to forego our addiction to power and reclaim our place as cosmic-planetary creatures whose essential vocation is to treat creation with the reverence and care it deserves.”

 

From his home page quotes - "It is possible to prepare for the future without knowing what it will be. The primary way to prepare for the unknown is to attend to the quality of our relationships and how well we know and trust one another." --Margaret J. Wheatley

[glintofpewter]

If you are in need of an excellent 'sermon' listen to Michael Dowd at C3 Exchange

 

http://www.c3exchange.org/archive/evolutionize-your-life-heaven-is-coming-home-to-reality/

[rivanna]

Thanks for the link to this sermon. Some reflections

 

Michael Dowd talks about locating ourselves in the big story of evolution -- a shift from tribal mentality to identifying with humanity as one species. He says to trust that times of chaos and breakdown are a source of creativity, beneficial change interpret generously. Dowd suggests exchanging the symbol of the cross, for a global heart. [more inclusive, yes, though the cross reminds us of our mortality and vulnerability, suffering as the roots of empathy]

 

So much of what he advocates is admirable and convincing. My only criticism is that he dismisses scripture as irrelevant, or dangerous - an outdated map of reality; and he does away with God as person, as companion.

 

The main culprit is idolatry of the written word, which has created a mismatch between our past needs and current reality. I see science, not the Bible or any other ancient written document, as revealing Gods Word for humanity today. Indeed, nothing is driving young people away from God further and faster than the Bible. I foresee the concept of a personal God, being replaced (for millions of people, but not everyone) by a reality-based view of God within a few generations, thanks in large part to the New Atheists. Despite how it appears in the Bible, reality does not have the deranged personality and character flaws of a Bronze Age warlord [seems to bypass the Progressive approach assumes that everyone takes the the bible literally]

 

I like how Dowd says we need to find a way of being a blessing to others, alluding to Frederick Buechner -- The place God calls you to is where your deep gladness and the worlds deep hunger meet.

 

And I like how he closed with lines from Christopher Frys verse play, A Sleep of Prisoners -- the enterprise is exploration into God. --in many ways the EC perspective reminds me of Star Treks philosophy :-)

 

Another EC voice is Barbara Marx Hubbard wonder how this project will turn out--

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-marx-hubbard/december-2012_b_885947.html?

[glintofpewter]

My only criticism is that he dismisses scripture as irrelevant, or dangerous - an outdated map of reality; and he does away with God as person, as companion.

 

The emphasis changes: ultimate reality is not a person; but we personify our relationship with the ultimate reality.

This is an intimate relationship. Paul Smith, in another conversation, talks about 3-D God: the infinite face, the intimate face and the inner face. As the inner face we are as God, like Jesus. Similar to being God's hands and feet but a stronger statement about our divinity. Michael describes himself as a naturalist and so would not speak about divinity but says that we are the expression of evolution become conscious of itself, an ubiquitous idea these days.

[minsocal]

According to Dr. Paul Valent, evolution provided us with two innate survival stategies growing out of the need to deal with the scaricty of resources. One strategy is to compete with others to obtain scarce resources and the other is to cooperate with others to create sufficient resources. Obtain or create? Valent then goes on to say that as we reflect on these two innate survival strategies, our consciousness becomes ever more spiritual. But, a lot depends upon whether we reflect on one, the other, or both. To know ourselves is to reflect upon both. The last is Jungian.

 

Myron

[glintofpewter]

Not about self-aware behavior - without comment for now

 

Meek men the perfect mate in austere times

They find that when faced with the threat of increased prevalence of disease, women choose more masculine males. But during times of resource scarcity, "feminine" males, who are more committed to long-term relationships and caring for resulting offspring, come to the fore.

 

Lee, a postgraduate student in the Univeristy's School of Psychology, says the research builds on cross-cultural studies that show women in countries with a higher prevalence of disease are more likely to prefer males with strong masculine features.

 

"Masculine males have increased testosterone and robust immune systems," he says. "This indicates if you mate with a masculine male they can pass on their increased immunity to a child."

 

Lee says the preference for more masculine partners has a trade-off.

 

"The problem with choosing a more masculine male is that increased testosterone is also associated with traits linked to being a bad parent," he says. These include a preference for short-term relationships and low faithfulness.

[minsocal]

Not about self-aware behavior - without comment for now

 

Meek men the perfect mate in austere times

They find that when faced with the threat of increased prevalence of disease, women choose more masculine males. But during times of resource scarcity, "feminine" males, who are more committed to long-term relationships and caring for resulting offspring, come to the fore.

 

Lee, a postgraduate student in the Univeristy's School of Psychology, says the research builds on cross-cultural studies that show women in countries with a higher prevalence of disease are more likely to prefer males with strong masculine features.

 

"Masculine males have increased testosterone and robust immune systems," he says. "This indicates if you mate with a masculine male they can pass on their increased immunity to a child."

 

Lee says the preference for more masculine partners has a trade-off.

 

"The problem with choosing a more masculine male is that increased testosterone is also associated with traits linked to being a bad parent," he says. These include a preference for short-term relationships and low faithfulness.

 

Well, these ideas have been around a while, with conflicting results from various cross-cultural studies. But then, where does that leave a gay male such as myself?

 

Myron

[glintofpewter]

But then, where does that leave a gay male such as myself?

Sounds rhetorical, is it?

[minsocal]

Sounds rhetorical, is it?

 

Am I a function of testosterone or estrogen?

 

Myron

[glintofpewter]

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained

 

I found this study which "suggests" that 14% of homosexuality can be explained by the phenomenon that gay men's maternal relatives are hypersexed fecund mothers.

 

But in following this scientific bunny trail I have lost the more significant thread from Dr Valent's observations about strategies.

 

Dutch

[minsocal]

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained

 

I found this study which "suggests" that 14% of homosexuality can be explained by the phenomenon that gay men's maternal relatives are hypersexed fecund mothers.

 

But in following this scientific bunny trail I have lost the more significant thread from Dr Valent's observations about strategies.

 

Dutch

 

Ok. I am a masculinized gay male. I measure high on testosterone levels. I have never desired anything but a monogamous relationship. Explain please.

 

Myron

[minsocal]

I will say this yet again. Dr. Paul Valent has excellent credentials. He began his exploration into human nature at the age of four in a Nazi concentration camp.

 

Myron

[glintofpewter]

Explain please.

 

 

Ok, I will take this on the face of it. I suspect you know more about any of the answers than I do. I speak out of the blindness of heterosexual privilege and my position was arrived after ten years of questions. Your position comes from an innate knowing, if that is an accurate way of stating it.

 

I do not, in anyway, think that Dr. Valent has the most profound qualifications for his observations and I did not mean anything I said to suggest I questioned his standing in speaking about these matters. I was distracted by free association bunny trails.

 

I derailed the line of thought first when I mentioned the "meek male" study in response to the question about strategies. The study and Dr. Valent's thoughts operate at different levels of psychological involvement or depth. The first study, about meek males, does not measure hormones and doesn't claim to, I think. Comments quoted about possible hormonal involvement came from others. A woman who makes a mating choice is not operating within the world of Dr. Valent's observations. Hers is not a self-aware response as measured.

 

The first study has nothing to do with the homosexuality. Well, I free-associated it with my personal observation of the world, that, in adolescence, gay men who express themselves in a more feminine way and young women often gravitate towards each other creating a world where there is no tension regarding finding a mate. So, my hypothesis is that in a time of scarcity, the nurturing aspects of gay men would be welcomed.

 

The second study, after gathering data on the fecundity of maternal relatives of 98 gay men and 100 straight men, suggests that there is something in whatever leads to having more children that correlates somehow with gay men. They calculate that this (14%) and the immune hypothesis (7%), younger boys are more likely to be gay, account for 21% of observed gay men. Again that is what their study suggests. If one of the factors leading to more fecund women is higher testosterone, then, yes it would suggest that a contributing factor for gay men is a higher testosterone. But it is only one in a constellation. This woman is "hyersexualized" -- and looking for monogamous long-term relationships in which to raise her greater than average number of children.

 

The "meek male" study, which not does seem to concern gay men, suggests to me in free-association, that gay men are evolutionarily advantageous in the care of offspring. In the second study gay men are a by-product, therefore, neutral, regarding evolutionary success.

 

Well, that is my response to your "Explain these". If one was needed.

 

Dutch

 

[minsocal]

Dutch,

 

Sorry to put you through this, but the subject is full of minefields. Careers and reputations have been damaged by taking a stance on these issues. While cross-cultural studies do 'suggest' the links you talk about it is difficult to determine the genetic component, if any. I think it would be fair to say that our genetic makeup and culture coevolved to some degree. But, there is diversity in culture. For example, there is a tribe in Africa where mate selection is determined by how well young males dance with their eyes crossed. Yes, that is exactly what I said. The women consider crossed eyes very attractive. The young males line up in front of the elegible females and dance (with eyes crossed) while the females select a mate in rank order. The female with the highest rank selects first, and so on.

 

Dr. Valent's research is from "in the trenches" rather than from cross-cultural studies. His research subjects are victims of severe trauma. Again, there is diversity in responses to truama, both negative and positive. Over many years of work, Dr. Valent found no less than eight different response patterns. What Dr. Valent is saying is that while Darwin was correct about certain innate adaptive responses to stress, we have under estimated the diversity and quality of these responses. In particular, he has noted that for too long we have concentrated research in the area of maladaptive responses and not asked where do some of our more positve characteristics originate?

 

In my previous post I presented two of Dr. Valent's eight innate "phylo-genetic" templates. We see these two almost everywhere these days. Our planet is running out of resources and there is debate over whether to compete for oil or cooperate in the development of alternative sources of energy. Do we start wars or place diplomacy over aggression?

 

My point is really quite simple. Why don't we take a closer look at the positive side of human nature? On that question, yes I can provide a considerable amount of evidence based findings.

 

Myron

[minsocal]

After careful consideration and reference back to a variety of source material I can now make some comments with reasonable confidence. First, when it comes to Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, this is not really Darwinism. It is based more on the theory of evolution developed by Henri Bergson. To a significant degree, Bergson rejected Darwin's theory in favor of the theory developed by Herbert Spencer. Both Spencer and Bergson could not accept many of the basic ideas found in Darwin's theory.

 

If the aim here is to reconnect these theories of evolution, then I can see that as a worthwhile project. That said, I am content to present Darwinism in its original form with the understanding that it directly contradicts other theories.

 

As for Process Theology and Whitehead, the story is similar. Some believe that Whitehead is closer to Bergson than Darwin. Having read both Darwin and Whitehead in their original form, I sense Whitehead is closer to Darwin than Bergson. In Process and Reality, Whitehead makes no mention of Darwin. As noted in the book, Whitehead used Spinoza as the true starting point of his theory and Spinoza anticipated Darwin to a significant degree. It is possible that Darwin was familiar with Spinoza, particularly in the area of human emotion. Like it or not, Process and Reality is a value theory with a theory of human emotion at its core. That is very clear.

 

Myron

[JenellYB]

Relative to some of what is being touched upon in this thread, check out the current Positive Psychology movement originating out of the works of Martin Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi...

 

Jenell

[minsocal]

Relative to some of what is being touched upon in this thread, check out the current Positive Psychology movement originating out of the works of Martin Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi...

 

Jene

 

I,m beginning to feel that you are something of a psychic. In a previous post I suggested that I would, if asked, provide some evidence based research on positive human moraL emotions and intuitions, etc. You named two of my sources.

 

Others are:

 

Antonio and Hanna Damasio - The reasoning areas of the brain are tied to emotional processing.

 

Jonathan Haidt - Moral emotions and moral intuitions (you can participate in his research on-line).

 

All of this ties to Darwin and Whitehead. In fact, if Antonio Damasio's research holds, it would lend solid support to the theory of mind laid out in Process and Reality.

 

Myron

[JenellYB]

I've been accused of being that before....though not always nicely.

When it comes to what's going on with my close personal loved ones, they've come to take it for granted.

I just call it being intuitive.

 

[minsocal]

I've been accused of being that before....though not always nicely.

When it comes to what's going on with my close personal loved ones, they've come to take it for granted.

I just call it being intuitive.

 

 

Intuitive also ... same thing with my loved ones.

[soma]

I feel the intuitive, spiritual consciousness as you all demonstrate gives a new concept of life that helps form a new humanity, both on the individual and community level. It helps people take on something more than the animal because it offers a faith that is both spiritually and socially concerned with the material well being of all of humanity and the universe. This is when a person transcends biological evolution and starts spiritual evolution, a new field where people can realize new possibilities. Living beings or humans conscious of the whole evolutionary process gradually learn of their true identity, duty and destiny. It seems practical biological progress changes gears here and evolution changes from a mechanical process to a conscious strategy. Spiritual evolution begins because the mind understands and grows from experience through modeling and instruction, which is different from the transmission of genotypes through biological reproduction. Biological evolution has brought us a great number of important facts and ideas, for example, the mechanisms of genetic transmission, but equally important ideas can emerge from the studies of spiritual evolution. In this respect we can learn from the straight and gay perspective in spiritual evolution.

[Brian Holley]

It seems practical biological progress changes gears here and evolution changes from a mechanical process to a conscious strategy.

 

I'm trying to catch up here, having been busy for a week. You guys really do get down to it, don't you.!

 

I agree with Soma that evolution seems to be changing up a gear, though I'm not totally committed to the idea of a change "from a mechanical process to a conscious strategy". I was reading about the work of John Cairns this week in a book by Bruce H Lipton and Steve Bhaerman called Spontaneous Evoltion. Cairns put bacteria under stress and found that they spontaneously produced an enzyme that started to randomly generate genes. When a gene was generated that dealt with the cause of the stress, the early gene was replaced and the random generation ceased. It seemed that the organism knew when it had found the answer it was looking for. It took a long time for Cairn's discovery to be accepted by the scientific community because it seemed to show purposeful behaviour by the bacteria. I've long intuited that it is in the nature of nature to nurture and that our evolution into an empathetic creature with the intelligence and ingenuity to become co-creative with the evolutionay process is purposeful, although the route taken has been random. Is our consciousness something new or did is it merely a new expression of that which has always been in the energies of the universe?

 

This takes me back to my earlier suggestion that love is at the heart of the creative process and that this love is totally committed to non-violence. Thus progress has to be on the basis of 'what can be will be' - it is both purposeful and random - the Greeks call it 'stochastic'. That's why I find the message of Matthew 5, the Bhagavad Gita and the Tao Teh Ching so important for today. Nature's creative method is overwhelmingly (though maybe not totally) non-violent. The only way we can become co-creators is by choosing to control our mammalian and reptilian instincts and choosing the path of love.

 

Does this make any kind of sense?

[rivanna]

Brian, makes sense to me--thanks for this thread, it has introduced so many interesting voices. I liked what you said here,

 

"it is in the nature of nature to nurture and our evolution into an empathetic creature with the intelligence and ingenuity to become co-creative with the evolutionary process is purposeful"

 

Several people in the EC conference referred to Jeremy Rifkin’s The Empathic Civilization (2010). It traces the evolution of empathy through history, and seems to draw conclusions similar to yours--

 

“When we say to civilize, we mean to empathize.

 

Human beings have a genetic predisposition, an innate hankering to seek empathic affiliation and companionship with other creatures, and with the wild.

 

We begin to sense the possibility that there may be a purpose after all to the human journey: that the deepening sense of selfhood, the extension of empathy and the expansion of human consciousness, is the process by which we explore the mystery of existence and discover new realms of meaning.”