Tim Keller tweets on evolution

[Burl]

Quote

If we are merely the product of evolution on what basis can we object to powerful people oppressing marginalized ones? Strong>the weak

https://mobile.twitter.com/timkellernyc/status/975734637761835008?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frelevantmagazine.com%2Fgod%2Ftim-keller-posted-interesting-thoughts-evolution%2F&tfw_creator=relevant&tfw_site=relevan

Good comments.

[romansh]

22 minutes ago, Burl said:

22 minutes ago, Burl said:

If we are merely the product of evolution on what basis can we object to powerful people oppressing marginalized ones? Strong>the weak 

Good comments.

No not good comments at all.  1) evolution does not care about oppression. 2) If the weak out-reproduce the strong, the weak are winning from an evolutionary point of view. 3) If Timothy or anyone else can't think of reasons for not oppressing the weak, the education system in that segment of the population needs a revisit.

Edited March 20, 2018 by romansh

[romansh]

Plus note the "merely" ... a rhetorical device designed to activate an emotional response.

From a materialist point of view we are the product of the universe  unfolding of which evolution is a description (a very accurate one and one that is being refined all the time) of a part of that unfolding.

Edited March 20, 2018 by romansh

[Burl]

The interesting question is whether humanity is evolving towards God.  It is worth consideration.

[thormas]

From the Christian perspective, or perhaps from my Christian perspective, we are not evolving towards God for that would suggest natural (perhaps inevitable?) process. Rather I believe that  we can actualize our 'best//true' self or we move toward deification (only) if we incarnate God/Love. In the Christian perspective, the 'evolution of man' is first an action of God.

[romansh]

10 hours ago, Burl said:

The interesting question is whether humanity is evolving towards God.  It is worth consideration.

Oh I thought Timothy's point was a good comment. Never mind.

Regarding your interesting question ... evolution per se does not have direction.

Evolution in a nutshell:

• If we have a system that replicates
• But the replication is not completely accurate
• And if there are differential rates of successful replication because of the environment

Then we must have evolution.

Of course the replicates themselves are also part of the environment. We can make certain predictions based on this, but evolution itself does not have a direction. As to evolving towards God ... The first mover ... a bit late for that.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by romansh

[Burl]

Evolution may not have a direction but development does.  I don't think one can discuss evolution on this grand scale without also considering development.

Development pulls from a genetically predefined future potential, and evolution is the result of interactions with development and the rest of creation.

The two processes are inextricably linked, but rarely discussed together.

[thormas]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

Evolution may not have a direction but development does.  I don't think one can discuss evolution on this grand scale without also considering development.

Development pulls from a genetically predefined future potential, and evolution is the result of interactions with development and the rest of creation.

The two processes are inextricably linked, but rarely discussed together.

Just a question or, perhaps, an observation:  how can there be a 'predefined future potential' if a species adapts and develops (only) in response to its environment, i.e. by interacting with/responding to developments within the rest of creation? If that environment changes, then what a species interacts with changes and, therefore, how that species adapts and develops will (might) change. Its future potential, or one of its future potentials, is no longer possible (or perhaps even desirable) given the 'changed' present. 

Then again it's genetic predefinition might not enable it to adapt and thus extinction, while others have a greater genetic predisposition to adapt and survive. 

Now I have a headache and will go rest :+}

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by thormas

[romansh]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

Development pulls from a genetically predefined future potential

You will have to flesh out this thought Burl. 

And how this might lead to being the first mover?

Edited March 21, 2018 by romansh

[Burl]

Seeds, or a fertilzed ovum, do not evolve.  They grow predictably and with almost perfect consistency.  Cells multiply and differentiate into  incredibly complex organisms.  The final development is predetermined with only minor variations.

Evolution is the result of interaction of the developing organism with the environment.  It is a completely different process.

The maxim "Ontology recapitulates philogeny" is a decent rule of thumb.  The evolutionary development of a species generally does  resemble the development of the organism, but evolution is only a supporting player.  

 

[thormas]

13 hours ago, Burl said:

 

Ontogeny

[Burl]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Ontogeny

Right-e-o.  Also proctologist not astrologist ?

Two related life processes; ontogeny and evolution.  Ontogeny is orders of magnitude more important than evolution.  

This is the confusion at the crux of the rather silly creation vs. evolution arguments.  Keller's tweet crystallizes an essential flaw in the dialog between fundamentalist scientism and creationism.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Burl

[PaulS]

On 21 March 2018 at 1:41 PM, Burl said:

The interesting question is whether humanity is evolving towards God.  It is worth consideration.

Consider away I say if that's what tickles your fancy, but why not consider if humanity is evolving 'away' from God or indeed, is evolving without any concept of God whatsoever? 

Why are a minority of the human species so hell-bent on being convinced there is something behind the scenes pulling the strings?  Is it for the same evolutionary reasons that many are scared of the dark, or is is just the hangover of superstition that developed when we first started to walk upright?

I doubt Tim Keller is genuinely asking a question and I doubt he would be genuinely be interested in any of those comments that don't include God in the picture.  There is nothing 'mere' about evolution and if Tim really doesn't know why we should object to powerful people oppressing marginalised ones without some God being part of the equation, then I'd be concerned that his education was severely lacking in that societal dept.

[thormas]

Not sure it's a minority and it is doubtful if they think in terms of the 'strings being pulled behind the scenes' although it is a nice attempt to color and thus sway the argument.  Further, the question could also be reversed and it could be asked why is a (real) minority of the human species so afraid (meant to color the argument) to allow there is something more to existence than the strings they pull which go nowhere? Is it tied to an inability to trust, to risk, to imagine - an insecurity born of living in fear (to which they reverted) until they first learned to walk upright? 

Some believe there is evolution towards God, others away from God, others without a concept of God and still others with a more enlightened concept of God  - all is a matter of belief.

 

 

[Burl]

The majority of the world is extremely interested in the reality of spirituality.  Only the Western academic elite discourage public acceptance.  All other cultures accept spirituality as obvious.

Even the US military and intelligence community have extensive programs researching ESP, remote viewing and mind control but only now are these gradually being unclassified.

The Christian/evolution argument is as silly as the creationist and young earth theories they revolve around.  Keller does not reject evolution.  He just made a clever tweet to make people think for a moment.

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, Burl said:

The majority of the world is extremely interested in the reality of spirituality.  Only the Western academic elite discourage public acceptance.  All other cultures accept spirituality as obvious.

Even the US military and intelligence community have extensive programs researching ESP, remote viewing and mind control but only now are these gradually being unclassified.

The Christian/evolution argument is as silly as the creationist and young earth theories they revolve around.  Keller does not reject evolution.  He just made a clever tweet to make people think for a moment.

The majority of the world also used to believe the earth was flat, and that slavery was considered normal.  As Leo Tolstoy is quoted - “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it”.  Such ‘spirituality’ as you mention Burl has been bending and twisting ever since first thought in an effort to keep up with the world modernising.

As for the US military - you have a President who’s chief spiritual advisor is conducting a ‘Mega Miracles’ tour with a preacher who claims to raise people from the dead.  Just because somebody is fanatical about spirituality doesn’t give it credibility.  Can you even name one single military initiative/development that has resulted from these programs (not including what they learnt about psychology and the real world)?

We agree the Christian evolution/young earth/creationists arguments are all silly, but these are examples of the old spirituality trying to hold on in the face of development.  I imagine today’s ‘spirituality’ will be viewed the same in another couple of hundred years.

[romansh]

Stargate

 

And I wonder if the majority of the world considers spiritual as the antithesis to death?

Edited March 24, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

The majority of the world also used to believe the earth was flat, and that slavery was considered normal.  As Leo Tolstoy is quoted - “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it”.  Such ‘spirituality’ as you mention Burl has been bending and twisting ever since first thought in an effort to keep up with the world modernising.

As for the US military - you have a President who’s chief spiritual advisor is conducting a ‘Mega Miracles’ tour with a preacher who claims to raise people from the dead.  Just because somebody is fanatical about spirituality doesn’t give it credibility.  Can you even name one single military initiative/development that has resulted from these programs (not including what they learnt about psychology and the real world)?

We agree the Christian evolution/young earth/creationists arguments are all silly, but these are examples of the old spirituality trying to hold on in the face of development.  I imagine today’s ‘spirituality’ will be viewed the same in another couple of hundred years.

Yet, seemingly, the majority which has long left the flat earth and slavery behind still believes in spirituality (and the bending and twisting has brought many to newer understandings or beliefs). And to play off Leo, something is not necessarily wrong because the majority share it - nor do we 'know' if spirituality is wrong (especially since it is not a singular thing but has different facets). But this is an argument with no possible right or wrong because we are dealing with belief. 

I can't comment further on the Trumpeter because he is beyond all understanding and I suspect even mystifies God. However just because some are fanatical doesn't mean all are and, in and of itself, does not establish the truth or falsity of the belief in spirituality. 

I guess one could have imagined that nothing would come from the preaching about a crucified carpenter from Nazareth.........but?? So we don't and can't know what future others will think about 21C  takes on spirituality or what their spirituality, if any, will be. 

[romansh]

On ‎2018‎-‎03‎-‎20 at 4:26 PM, Burl said:

Good comments.

This thread seems to have more twists and turns than Monte Carlo Grand Prix.

But if spirituality (as opposed to the antithesis of death) is what this thread is actually about, I am reminded of a funeral service I went to an ex-Pastor friend of mine at a local church. There were a few unfortunate aspects to the service, but the church was full. I could not help but feel a large number of the people were having "spiritual experiences". As much as I can discern from an observer's viewpoint without an MRI scanner or some such. 

I also cannot but think there was an addictive aspect to these so-called spiritual experiences. Now I think addictions per se are not necessarily detriment to life. Quite simplistically we are addicted to breathing. Also I am not so naïve not to understand I too have my addictions. But I suspect some have  strong addiction for spiritual experience whether it a 400-strong congregation singing or perhaps the infra-sound of a cathedral organ, hence the Christian music and art threads. 

Mine is looking down a microscope (or perhaps telescope at the stars, got one over the Christmas period); science in general. Also addicted to the high during playing squash - there is a meditative-spiritual aspect to a long rally, though at 63 they are not so long these days.

Edited March 25, 2018 by romansh

[FireDragon76]

On 3/20/2018 at 7:49 PM, romansh said:

No not good comments at all.  1) evolution does not care about oppression. 2) If the weak out-reproduce the strong, the weak are winning from an evolutionary point of view. 3) If Timothy or anyone else can't think of reasons for not oppressing the weak, the education system in that segment of the population needs a revisit.

I see him arguing there is a moral or spiritual dimension to human being, that we are not merely animals.  Otherwise, why not do as animals do and simply accept that things like racism and tribalism are merely manifestations of our genes to favor in-group members?

[FireDragon76]

On 3/25/2018 at 1:22 PM, romansh said:

This thread seems to have more twists and turns than Monte Carlo Grand Prix.

But if spirituality (as opposed to the antithesis of death) is what this thread is actually about, I am reminded of a funeral service I went to an ex-Pastor friend of mine at a local church. There were a few unfortunate aspects to the service, but the church was full. I could not help but feel a large number of the people were having "spiritual experiences". As much as I can discern from an observer's viewpoint without an MRI scanner or some such. 

I also cannot but think there was an addictive aspect to these so-called spiritual experiences. Now I think addictions per se are not necessarily detriment to life. Quite simplistically we are addicted to breathing. Also I am not so naïve not to understand I too have my addictions. But I suspect some have  strong addiction for spiritual experience whether it a 400-strong congregation singing or perhaps the infra-sound of a cathedral organ, hence the Christian music and art threads.

I don't think that's what Christians are thinking of when they are talking about spiritual experiences.  A spiritual experience is more than simply an experience of the sublime.

This is more like the spiritual experience Christians often have:

 

Mike McHargue, a popular progressive Christian blogger, talks about experiencing something similar.  A sizeable percentage of Americans who are otherwise psychologically healthy have had some kind of spiritual experience similar to what Mike or Tracy Lind have experienced.

Edited July 29, 2018 by FireDragon76