It only makes sense that religion, like language, would have enabled larger numbers of humans to live as a collective, allowing for more specialization including for defense (and/or aggression). But I do think there is more to it than that even though I reject any religion’s claim to exclusive or special status, including Christianity.
1 Like
Westerners traditionally think that matter and the Spirit are opposites, but this is not Biblical. .God created the universe out of nothing. This has even been confirmed by the Big Bang. If God created matter and energy, how can it be evidence that God does not exist? If God used evolution to created humans in God’s own image, how can evolution prove that God does not exist?
I think that Edward Wilson has growth in his understanding. He recently broke with Dawkins over the Selfish Gene with the view that evolution rewards cooperation, and has sought support from churches to resist climate change.
Science can help us to solve scientific problems, which is good. But humans must solve human problems of how humans can better live together, which is basically a religious and political issue.
Gregory, I appreciate your perspectives. I think that, as a man of science, you don’t care whether they have an axe to grind or not. You address the question. If there is evidence that religious faith developed evolutionarily, you would address that, correct?
Thanks.
“I have nothing to say that I haven’t said already but…”
Maybe there are still a few things that you haven’t said before, Matthew, even that you might say with a new dialogue partner that you haven’t engaged with before? If you wish to link me to what you’ve written previously here on this topic, I’m game. If so, however, I would hope you would consider it fair to also then read what I link you to that I’ve “said already” on this topic. Does that sound fair to you?
“The theory of evolution is agnostic with regards to questions of morality ”
Surely not true from a philosophical perspective, nor in the perspective of many non-philosophers, e.g. most evangelical Protestants. Many people have used “evolutionary theories” (there’s more than just one) to try to study morality. “The evolution of morality” gets over a 1 million hits, for reality sake, Matthew! What is this posing about some singular monolithic “the theory of evolution” & “agnostic wrt questions of morality”, in the face of such massive evidence and need to the contrary, Matthew?
“It is important to separate classic social Darwinism from the theory of evolution. Many people try to link the two together and use it as a justification for rejecting the scientific theory which is a mistake. ”
Are you wishing to converse here with those “many people”, or instead with me? I’m here, if you’ll play fair. So far, it seems you’re writing to someone else as your audience. Could you please switch to addressing me instead directly with your claims about ERS, social Darwinism and evolutionary sociology, so we can look more closely at what you are actually saying about those things?
The 2 books that I’ve written on this topic, and multiple papers do indeed separate “social Darwinism” from “evolutionary theories”, and don’t make the mistake you suggest. Would you believe that, or only doubt it, Matthew? Doesn’t that put us on the same side in any way here? It is highly ironic that a religious physicst, not a biologist, is warning a religious sociologist that those two particular “things” must be kept separate! Thanks for the good humour in it. = )
“I think its fine … [to] come up with a new sort of social Darwinism that has nothing to do with how it is traditionally understood.”
Sure, as you wish, Matthew, of course, if BioLogos will float the carpet for you to promote this. Yet this “new social Darwinism” will still be a terrible theory, that people SHOULD properly morally reject, and will continue to do so across the social sciences and humanities. This “new theory” by Wilson, Johnson & co. needn’t actually have anything to do with “Charles Robert Darwin”. They NEED Darwin to make this happen “socially” for them; they need the “scientific-ideological appeal” of “Darwinism” (read: what many people mistake as simply “modern evolutionary biology”).
Is it so hard to fathom that contemporary sociologists would choose intentionally NOT to look to a natural-biologist from the 19th century to come up with a “new social theory” for us today, Matthew? Wilson doesn’t get this, but he’s a biologist, a biological anthropologist, and an evolutionary universalist. I would have thought you’d come to a different “conceptualization” than Wilson’s “quasi-sociology”, Matthew. Most Christians I’ve met don’t support Wilson’s activistic evolutionism, nor what he calls “new social Darwinism”.
Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote: “Darwin’s theory was good biology which was perverted by others to support bad sociology.” (1956)
He accepted evolution, but rejected the perversion of “the theory of evolution” into fields that it now seems you are advocating they should be re-explored. What troubles me is that your referral suggestion comes from atheists and agnostics doing supposedly “good (= fair, neutral, objective) science” in ERS, which is not itself a “scientific” field. Trying to “scientize” the field of “religious studies” is itself part of the problem here, Matthew, which it does not seem you openly acknowledge.
Why then, would you, Matthew, be defending Wilson and the Evolution Institute for trying to come up with a “new social Darwinism”, that is driven as much by ideological atheism and anti-religious or “post-Christian” worldview, as it is based on natural science? You seem to simply see “fair, neutral, objective” re: ERS, while promoting “strictly science” as a physicist, whereas most other people, and everyone I know who has looked closely into “social Darwinism” and ERS, sees worldview impact all over it, not just “science-only”. Perhaps you need to work harder on how to see what now seems invisible to you as a natural scientist, but which is plently available and visible in the literature, and for everyday people who aren’t scientists to see, feel, and experience for themselves?
“It would be just as fine for someone to ask, in light of the theory of general relativity, how then should we treat our fellow humans.”
Would that actually be helpful though, Matthew, or just ivory tower idleness? And gee, hasn’t this been tried already and largely failed? If helpful, how much: only a very little bit, or in a more significant way? Sorry, but I’m not that interested in diversions into the barely meaningful or almost silly on this topic, when the not-silly-at-all, and rather meaningful is not yet being fairly and directly addressed.
Wouldn’t it be better to go to people who actually work in those fields who regularly study “how we should treat our fellow humans”, Matthew? That’s what I prefer to do. Physics isn’t one of those fields of “science”, so I don’t look to physicists defending “bad sociology” as if D.S. Wilson were it’s fitting chamption. If you find that problematic, then we’re not going to agree on much between us.
"It’s fine for there to be natural explanations for the origin of religion… because… wait for it… most Christians believe that God made and upholds the natural laws”
You’ve erected a flip-it around problem, Matthem. Christians (sociological counterclaim to yours) don’t study only “natural laws” in “religious studies” departments. “Upholding natural laws” is not operationally equivalent with “religion evolved entirey naturally”. That would be, wait for it, reductionistic and naturalistic.
You’re aware of reductionism, right Matthew? You’re aware that people actually do regularly use ideology when doing “religious studies”, aren’t you? If you are, then aren’t we supposed to be “allies” against “ideological naturalism” being used in religious studies, under the guise of merely pretending (but obviously not ultimately succeeding) to be “strictly scientific”? Aren’t we supposed to be allies against turning “Abrahamic monotheism” (if you accept that label, Matthew) into a “big history/little history” joke that they tell in faculty lounges at public universities? It would seem you have trouble agreeing, if we can’t even agree on those things.
Ideological religious studies is not “strictly scientific”. You agree, or at least don’t disagree, right Matthew?
“And I would argue that you are incorrect.”
I welcome your disagreement both with peaceful argumentation and evidence to support your conjectures here about “social Darwinism”. Unfortunately, in this case, you think I am incorrect only because you’ve set up a straw man that didn’t address what I said.
You followed that with: “Scientific explanations are agnostic towards the existence and activity of any gods.”
Instead, what I wrote was: “If religion ‘evolved’ into existence “strictly naturally”, then there was no God involved, by definition.”
Has this registered with you yet on a philosophical and historical level?
Please brainstorm “strictly naturally”, if it would help you to understand more clearly, what “by definition” means in this case. It’s sounds almost like you’re denying “naturalism” could be “anti-theistic” as a worldview orientation, when in fact that is how it is often discussed in the philosophical and so(oul)ciological literature. I’m asking for you to check the record and see if what you’re claiming, might actually not be true, or if you might have missed something important, far outside of your typical fields of engagement?
As for “the dangers of ‘theistic water cyclism’,” thank you for this old staple humour used with YECists, to try to jostle them into understanding. They get stuck on it often, don’t they, Matthew? It’s terribly ironic in this case, of course, since not a few at BioLogos also accept the label “theistic evolution”? Semantically, you’ve just pulled the chair out from under “theistic evolution” also. But I’m not a “theistic evolutionist”, so that’s fine with me, just as it is with Stacy Trasancos. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/why-say-theistic-evolution-is-there-any-other-kind
It may be, Matthew, that you believe as D.S. Wilson does, that “Nothing in Sociology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” To this sociologist, that would make you sound as foolish as Wilson does, and as unknowledgeable about actual sociology and sociologists. They are a rather pathetic lot of atheists and agnostics in love with exaggerating “evolutionary” thinking into as many spheres of life as possible, Matthew. Wouldn’t you like to hear directly from them how badly I must be representing them to report about what I’ve seen this way? Why not consider the opportunity to hear about ERS from evolutionists themselves, Matthew, to see if they might actually represent (at least some of) your views quite accurately about non-biological (mis)uses of “evolution” in society?
“they are making the same error that you are”
You are sharing the same view of “the evolution of religion” as they do, except you “add God”. Instead, you’re message falsely links me with ERS proponents, when in fact the similarities between yours and the ERS position about the “early history of religion” are striking so far. I’d be glad if you seek more clarity on this, Matthew, because dehumanizing sociology can have terrible consequences, which I can say from having seen not a small amount of it over the years both inside of universities and outside them.
Why not side with Abrahamic religious monotheism and the widely accepted social anti-Darwinism, Matthew, instead of with D.S. Wilson’s fanatical obsession with “evolutionism” and “evolution for everyone”?
Thanks Randy, for your expression of general appreciation.
Both men and women (happy Int’l Women’s Day!) of “science”, when it comes to the social sciences and humanities (i.e. the fields in which “religious studies” is studied), realize that “religious faith” isn’t a “strictly scientific” field of study. Trying to come up with a “science of faith” is a pathway to failure (or some kind of Steiner school of anthroposophic woo). We simply don’t try to “reduce” explanations of “religious faith” to 1) positive physical evidence alone, or 2) big history-only scenarios, Randy. That’s not how traditional theology has been done, nor (moral claim alert) should it be.
What’s amazing to me, Randy, is the pretty much insane diversion of attention some people have AWAY from humanity in the past 12,000 or so years, to instead try to come up with all kinds of explanations about society today from pre-history. What a bizarre situation of “big historicism” this has become!
“developed evolutionarily” mixes two processes back to back. It’s confusing.
Forgive me for not remembering, are you a natural scientist, Randy? It’s just otherwise odd that you would pose your question that way, as if “reflexivity” mattered not at all when discussing “religion.” In other words; no reflexivity, no heart. Cold sauce, friend. How to warm that up?
If there is evidence that theology developed by extension from the inspired teachings of the Church, you would address that, correct? No need to speak about “evolution” at all then wrt religion; better conversations to explore and inspire in the present day without irreligious “social Darwinism” appearing to pervert and distort, as Dobzhansky saw and stated without any problem, as a geneticist.
Is any of this previously visible to you, Randy, or is this mostly all new? I’m a N. American re-pat, so it’s sometimes hard to tell what people really don’t know vs. conveniently leave things out. This is especially the case when it comes to “evolution” being used to describe human activity within the past 12,000, or even past hundred years, rather than the far more popular, sensible, and thus more widespread term “development”.
Thanks for the answer! Could you tell us more about the conflict between Wilson and Dawkins, please. Thank!
Group selection isn’t necessary; the science is out on that and always will be [, Science does not have to go ‘in’ to it as in the supernatural. It doesn’t have to disprove it]. Jonathan Haidt covers the same ground in The Righteous Mind. With that minor error.
1 Like
The cognitive science of religion: philosophical observations | Religious Studies | Cambridge Core
Brother Gregory,
I’s always good to talk with you. Maybe you can tell me more about yourself. Are you then in the UK? I wonder how you feel about that in comparison–were you in Canada? I have shirttail relatives in Abbotsford and Edmonton.
I wonder what you think of Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) at Cambridge? Justin Barrett, a Christian from Calvin and now Fuller, helped with it.
With thankfulness, and respect, in Christ,
Randy
1 Like
Hello Randy,
Glad you are finding goodness in the conversation. Some simply aren’t looking for it; they think their “cup of goodness” is already full with ECism or TEism. You’ve watched the film Avatar and know what I mean, right Randy?
“Maybe you can tell me more about yourself.”
I’ll make an offering if you will. How does that sound? Lucky you to have non-blood relatives in Canada. No, I’m not in the UK. But I asked if you’re a scientist, and you didn’t answer me. So how do we develop a level playing field here where I trust you to answer, instead of just to ask, Randy?
CSR is going through a growth phase right now, undoubtedly. My radar is loosely trained on it, and there are concerning signs (e.g. “neuromania”, cognitive woo). Instead, others who are focused on it are on my radar. A very interesting paper about this was written recently by a Polish priest (not an evangelical Protestant), which I said I would endorse. The centre I was a guest scholar at in 2014 is on the cutting edge on this topic. Be welcome to DM me if you’d like a reference.
About Justin Barrett, frankly I don’t think much about him. BioLogos does, yes, that is known. He seems pretty smart, but his contribution here has been minimal & not exactly well-received. And what he attempted / is attempting to do with evolutionary anthropology / psychology seems to me forced and scientistic, typical of the US (e.g. “seeing is believing”) approach to this topic. In short, he seems to “not listen well”, in a pattern that is now well known among scientists on the international level, when it comes to dealing with “US theories of science” - overconfidence often comes with the territory.
That’s what I see in Justin Barrett’s “evolutionary psychology” appeal; it seems wrong-headed. Calvin and Fuller need not be blamed for this. Barrett has questions to answer. Maybe they’ll invite him to speak openly and do an AMA here at BioLogos, how about it Randy?
With respect in Christ,
Gregory
I meant to say “anything beyond the two posts that you did a search for and were horrified with.”
The theory of evolution is not the same as the evolution of morality. Or the evolution of rock and roll music. When we are talking about common ancestry and descent with modification, it is agnostic with regard to morality and I wish that the church would stop teaching younger Christians that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic or in a way that is different from how the theory of electromagnetism is inherently atheistic.
It’s a little confusing for me to pin down what you actually think. I may have confused you for someone else as well, I’m not sure. I can certainly accept that you aren’t trying to link social Darwinism as classically understood to the theory of evolution since you’ve said otherwise- which is something I see far too often. I don’t know what you’ve written on such topics, but you got a doctorate from somewhere on something that overlaps with the topics of this thread it seems.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but some of their essays in the one-volume I read looked like they could have been written from a compassionate Christian perspective.
I don’t think that is a problem.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. I don’t see why religion evolving naturally is a problem for Christianity if the mechanisms underlying how it came about were made and designed by God.
I see. That’s definitely strange for you to say “strictly naturally” and then mean that God cannot be involved. Every scientific explanation is by definition, “strictly natural,” hence my reference to general relativity.
I don’t see how I’m falsely linking you with them. Basically, you are saying this idea is inherently atheistic and so are they and I think you are both wrong on that.
I’m not sure what you mean by side with Abrahamic religious monotheism. Doesn’t D.S. Wilson argue against what you call “the widely accepted social anti-Darwinism?” Probably at the end of the day, I think that Wilson’s particular extension of evolution is a far reach beyond what the science itself can tell us. However, I applaud him for grabbing some aspects of the theory of evolution and aiming to apply them to make himself and the world a better place, which historically has gone very horribly. And I also think that a more scientific or evolutionary approach to many social questions isn’t necessarily a bad one, even if at times Wilson himself does this badly.
4 Likes
Nearly perfect post Matthew! But how did God do that? Make and design the mechanisms for the coming about of religion evolving naturally? Which mechanisms?
All of them. After reading Matthew’s stellar post, you aren’t thinking he’d actually propose there is a class of “atheistic mechanisms” to be scorned in favor of some special set of “holy mechanisms”, right?
1 Like
As the only mechanism that God can instantiate at most is otherwise dysteleological, autonomous, self ordered, meaningless nature (and supernature; ‘Heaven’), er, yes I think. I realise it’s just a figure of speech. Materialists use the same metaphors after all.
So it’s epistemologically caramelized schistosomiasis! Got it.
Baked candied parasitic worms? I’ll pass thanks. Salted hickory smoked maybe.
Not just any candied worms! Worms of truth. Sorry for the throw-away response. Sometimes your replies read like a student’s thought that he ran through a thesaurus replacing every word with the biggest possible synonym.
Yor English teacher shud ha dun learned you that sumtimes short words works good too.
I prescribe for you the xkcd’s book where complicated things are described using only the 1000 (ten hundred) most popularly used words. Here’s a taste: “U.S. space team’s Up goer five” (Saturn 5 rocket explained).
3 Likes
Hey, Mervin. This is what we do bro. I can think of a lot of people who need parasitizing with truth worms.
For Trekkies:
2 Likes
I’m guessing you all know this … but I was just attempting to string together the most unrelated string of words I could think of at the moment. If a new theology is born here, the joke will be on me.
1 Like
Oh noes! I just sent my form in to join the brotherhood of caramelized schistosomes. Maybe I can get my deposit back.
2 Likes