BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!

Subject: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 06:50 AM

The god of my idolatry, Charles Darwin, was born 200 years ago today, descended from pools of slime!

(A good day to read On the Origin Of Species, which is an amazing book almost no one reads, though everyone refers to it. A record of an awesome mind at work.)

Happy Birthday, Charles!

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 07:39 AM

You have to be a speed reader to read all of it in one day! Luckily my copy is safe somewhere in all the boxes crated up for a house move, along with "Voyage of the Beagle".

Happy Darwin Day to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: DannyC
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 07:43 AM

...   and yet, here in my State (USA), we host a 'Creationist' Theme Park wherein (I am told) mechanical figurines of various Bible characters can be seen riding on the backs of dinosaurs. Where's Clarence Darrow when you need him?

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: fretless
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 09:29 AM

This seems like a good place to put in a plug for Laurie Lebo's Devil in Dover, an excellent recounting of the recent trial in Dover Pennsylvania that set the precedent for the removal of intelligent design (i.e. creationist) curricula in Dover's public school science classes. It is a really fine read -- get your local library to order it so others can read it too.

Ol' Chuck Darwin has been getting some knocks in the US press lately, because, it is claimed, others were prepared to offer theories of evolution/natural selection around the same time he was. Happy Birthday anyway, fella. We're better off for what you did.

And on the topic of timely birthdays, let's not forget that Abe Lincoln was born on the same day in 1809.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 09:40 AM

Yes, and I was born the day before but not in the same years. Edison was too. Great minds were all born within 24 hours of each other.

Yeah, Chuck and Abe -- what a pair they were! I remember one time we were sittin' around playing Old Sledge with Sam Clemens when Abe said...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............snort.....(pulls up the covers)...........

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 09:55 AM

"And on the topic of timely birthdays, let's not forget that Abe Lincoln was born on the same day in 1809."

Thank you fretless. To read the LA Times today, you'd barely know it was his birthday. While I don't expect Mudcat to necessarily note his birthday--after all we are an international community--I expect more of what is supposed to be a major American newspaper.

Incidentally, LAT had a wonderful page 5, main section story on Darwin and his legacy.

I guess this is what is more important in the LA Times' world.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 10:19 AM

Didn't there used to be a holiday for Lincoln in the US? Replaced by President's Day or some other imperialist crap?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: JamesBerriman
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 10:28 AM

Celebrate with Darwin's ghost at the Leopard in Burslem tonight:

http://stoke.twestival.com/2009/02/09/the-best-ghosts/

Quote:

So, in a previous post we were pondering whether Charles Darwin, who celebrates his 200th birthday on Twestival night (coincidence? I think not), spent any time at the Leopard in Burslem.

Well, there's evidence. The landlord, Neil, took a moment out of ripping out a few 1950s 'improvements' to let us know that he has a diary entry in which Darwin writes about helping a family servant out by placing her in the Leopard as landlady and then, to help her settle in, spending a summer there. Well, it is hard just to stay there for 'one drink'…

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 10:31 AM

Yes, there used to be an actually observered holiday for both Lincoln and Washington (Feb 22). Now we have a bastardized Monday holiday that celebrates presidents in total...including a James Buchanon, a Richard Nixon and a Jimmy Carter. It gives US government workers, and some private industry, a three day holiday, but not much in the way of celebrating these two great presidents, or US history.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:02 AM

We just watched Inherit the Wind again - what a movie. Happy 200th!

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: goatfell
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:23 AM

From a Christian happy birthday Darwin and Lincoln

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:25 AM

...and, as the Wash Post notes today in a LONG article, science now has the tools and is beginning the process of detailed analysis of human evolution, using DNA and the fruits of the Human Genome Project.

That museum, with dinosaurs mixed with bible characters, will remain an amusement, just as meetings of the Flat Earth Society do.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: fretless
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:31 AM

Expanding on the topic of Lincoln's birthday and events not noted in the U.S., I was reminded yesterday that February is Black History Month in the U.S., and that this is the first year since the founding of the U.S. republic that the president signing the declaration for the month-long recognition was himself black/African American. Which, I guess, could be taken as a good thing -- that Obama's blackness has taken a back seat to his role as a president and an individual -- or a bad one: that the media is so insensitive to the historic nature of his presidency that they ignored the historic symbolism. The friend who reminded me ascribes to the latter interpretation. I'm less sure. But who can deny that this is a historic moment?

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:36 AM

Please note that today is also the 100th anniversary of the founding of the NAACP.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:51 AM

I note from that Post article that 42% of those polled in a national Pew Research poll 'believe' that humans have "existed in their present from since the beginning of time".

It will TAKE some time for science to overcome viewpoints based on acceptance of certain 'authorities' which try to interpret every new 'fact' according to what they are already sure of.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 12:10 PM

Well, it's been obvious from the Beginning that I am the center of the Universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 12:13 PM

HAPPY BIRTHDAY SAINT CHUCK!


from a mostly happy evolver

to paraphrase Firesign Theatre

"I'm with you Chuck, but you still put me through too many changes!"

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:24 PM

Darwin - Lincoln: born on the same day, same year

Adams - Jefferson: died on the same day, same year

How many other coincidences can you list? (I recognize the significance of your birthday, Rap. Happy belated Birthday wishes. )

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 02:34 PM

Nov. 22, 1963
JFK - Aldous Huxley (Author Huxley's death went virtually unnoticed in the USA owing to the enormity of the JFK assassination.)

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: gnu
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

The Discovery Channel's Daily Planet show is all Darwin tonight, I believe??? Should be good.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 07:15 PM

"Nov. 22, 1963
JFK - Aldous Huxley (Author Huxley's death went virtually unnoticed in the USA owing to the enormity of the JFK assassination.) " John on the Sunset Coast

You're right, John. I don't even remember Huxley's death. If we look I'll bet we can find other significant but unnoted events on that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 09:00 PM

Since we're celebrating things Darwin-- with good reason-- perhaps we should be honest enough to admit that though he is often cited as patron saint by many of the atheists who grace Mudcat, he himself was no atheist--and he made that clear.

Nor were many of the other usual suspects cited in Mudcat atheists' screeds--Jefferson, Washington, Franklin.   Nor Einstein.

Paine--very likely. But he was a decidedly a mixed bag.   Many positives.   But also called Washington a coward. Being imprisoned in France did not agree with him.

And offered Napoleon a strategy to conquer the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 09:30 PM

John on the Sunset Coast:

In my boyhood we had separate holidays for Lincoln and Washington, on the 12th and 22nd of February. I remember when I was young enough not to be sure which was which.

Presidents' Day is, to my way of thinking, a sloppy-minded, lazy abomination.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 10:05 PM

Well, I was just checking legal US and California holidays.
The Federal holiday for Presidents is, this year, Washington's Birthday (observed) Monday Feb 16...His actual b.d. is Feb 22. I guess it is no longer called Presidents Day...well half a loaf, etc.
The Feds have 10 legal holidays.

California, on the other hand, has 16(!) legal holidays (17 if you count the day after Thanksgiving), as if the state can afford them, given our economic miasma!

Add'l to the Feds, Calif. has Lincoln's B'Day (yea!), Good Friday (hmm, a religious holiday!), Cesar Chavez Day, Emmancipation Day (I've never heard of this one), and Calif. Admission Day. To its credit, or to its greed, most private businesses do not close for most of these holidays.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:56 PM

it's amazing that only 39 percent of the American public accepts Evolution as scientific fact if we are to believe these polls.

How is it that so many Americans have become so ignorant? Could it be that they've been brainwashed by "terrorists"?

Darwin was one of the great liberators of science. He continues to be a great man revered for his contribution all over the world with the exception of certain theocratic countries and the tendency toward this in the US.

Are 41 percent of Americans thinking about Evolution as does the Taleban?

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:14 PM

People can be ignorant without being stupid.....Ignorance is often intentional. "My mind's made up....don't confuse me with facts."

*IF* someone is emotionally/psychologically committed to a religious belief that 'everything was created in 6 days at some specified time', then they must fit all data into that model. There are religious models which do a very clever job of doing that Gerrymandering of fact & logic. They take some assumptions and construct a position that is internally consistent. It makes folks FEEL good to believe that there IS a simple, basic answer to how it all happened.. "God did it" It is hard work to escape from ANY mindset passed down for generations and believed by your entire social group.

America has a high % of folks who grew up with such beliefs, and is a relatively young nation. We will 'probably' change gradually as (and if) education begins to get thru the superstitutions we inherited.


(I just watched 3 programs on Darwin/Evolution last night where detailed, modern PROOF of evolution was demonstrated. Too bad they are not required for all students from 4th grade to college.)

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:30 PM

All the religions of the East seem to believe in varioius theories of spiritual evolution...a gradual process of human advancement that occurs over eons. If you believe in that, then it is no difficult thing to also believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The two theories do not conflict. They simply work on different levels. The one works with with physical evolution in a physical world, genetics, the bodily processes, all physical stuff that can be observed and studied in a lab. The other deals with the subtle and non-physical aspects within physical beings....meaning it deals with consciousness.

A physical being without consciousness is either temporarily unconscious...or it's dead. It's incapable of evolving under those circumstances. Therefore the study of consciousness itself is a worthy subject in regards to evolution, whether or not one can dig up any physical evidence out of the ground to support a theory about it.

If it weren't for a fairly advanced degree of consciousness in us human beings, I would not have noticed or responded to this thread at all, nor would Peter have posted it, nor would Darwin have thought up his theory and made his observations, nor would you who is reading my words right now be taking some notice of my response, and possibly composing an answer to it.

To assume that the 41 per cent of Americans who don't believe in Darwinian evolution are the only alternative to Darwin...or to intelligence itself...would be as silly as to assume that the Sperm Whale is the only alternative to the flea...or the tiddlywink is the only alternative to the hydrofoil....or any other non-sequitor you would prefer.

I'm all for Darwin. I'm all for spiritual evolution too. As you said, Peter...Happy Birthday, Darwin!

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:48 PM

The buddhist tradition, to which I belong, doesn't believe in spiritual advancement over eons -- actually it believes the opposite -- everything is going downhill.

It is not clear to me that Darwin did believe in God. He was usually pretty cagey. And after the death of his daughter, which nearly killed him with grief, I don't remember him saying anything positive about any deity.   If someone has a correction to that, I would be interested, but I don't think so.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:50 PM

It is true that there need not be any serious conflict between Darwin and religion in general...but religion in some specific forms can't admit evolution.

All that is required is to say "I still believe God made it all work, and it's interesting to 'see' the ways he used."

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Zen
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:55 PM

All the religions of the East seem to believe in varioius theories of spiritual evolution...a gradual process of human advancement that occurs over eons. If you believe in that, then it is no difficult thing to also believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The two theories do not conflict. They simply work on different levels.

This is quite true and I witnessed the same at first hand teaching biology, including evolution, to a large group of Tibetan monks on a "Science meets Dharma" exchange.

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:56 PM

Darwin waited years to publish his more controversial findings because his beloved wife WAS an evangelical Christian who would have been very upset at the direction the book took thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Zen
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 05:03 PM

The buddhist tradition, to which I belong, doesn't believe in spiritual advancement over eons -- actually it believes the opposite -- everything is going downhill.

Also as a Buddhist, I agree with Peter... spiritual "advancement" is the wrong way of looking at it. My point is that the monks found no conflict between Darwin's theory of evolution and their own tradition or understanding.

Incidentally, Darwin's ideas were initially rejected by the Royal Society, only being taken up shortly afterwards by the infinitely more enlightened minds of the Linnean Society.

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 05:07 PM

Buddhism ultimately views life as "suffering" doesn't it, Peter? Is not the objective to overcome desire and thereby transcend suffering? Is not the world itself seen as a form of illusion? If so, then evolution would be something occurring within the illusion...like an event occurring within a dream. It's an interesting way of looking at it, I guess, but I feel more comfortable with a somewhat less dour outlook.

As for Darwin believing in "God"....There are so many different ways of "believing" in "God" that I don't think we have much chance at all of determining what Darwin thought about it at this point. You'd have to BE Darwin to know what he thought about it.

We don't even have much chance of determining what other people we know think about it. We just fixate on the words themselves...the old symbols arise in the mind, symbols set by past conditioning...and we imagine that we know by a single word what is meant when another person says "God" or anything else like that. We don't know. We assume...very broadly...what that other person is thinking...we plant OUR familiar symbol on him or her...and our assumptions may be very wrong.

People can't get past the words. They learn a new word at some point in their life, and they then think they now know what the hell they're talking about! ;-) They don't know. They just know another damn word, that's all.

You can experience anything at all in life and you can know it intimately by the experience, without any words at all, but you cannot encapsulate it in a word. You can only pretend that the word clearly sums up the reality. This is what people generally do. They just argue over the familiar symbols...the ones they like, the ones they don't like. That is not thinking at all. It's reacting to programmed response. But it imagines that it is thinking, and brilliant thinking indeed! He who is the most clever with words imagines himself to be the master of those around him. Ah! King for an hour, a minute, a day!   

No wonder it was said that "All is vanity."

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 05:14 PM

I love a good story, and the Darwin story is just one of the best, from his youth, his trip on the Beagle, his interactions with the noble Fitzroy, his putting of his theory 'on the shelf', the ethical dilemma when he was asked to review Wallace's paper, his association with Thomas Huxley and Huxley's spirited 'defense' which was pretty aggressive, the confrontation with Wilberforce, it is true drama.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:51 PM

As always, LH, very thoughtful. Actually, the Buddhist tradition has a variety of versions of this. The core is that any development is personal, not social (which was kind of implied in your original point). But there are historical sketches -- probably influenced by proto-Hindu myths like the Kali Yuga. In some Buddhist traditions, the world is going to pot post-Buddha, and will only be redeemed by Maitreya Buddha (the Buddha of the future).   My experience has been that nobody much takes Maitreya seriously, except for one or two of the weird Japanese cult Buddhisms.

The Zen position on time is exemplified by the fox koan. (A monk refused to believe in karma, and was reborn as a fox for 40 generations -- when I asked a Zen teacher whether that meant that Buddhists had to believe in karma, he smiled and said the reason he was reborn 40 times was to give him a lot of time to think about it......).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:10 PM

Ha! ;-) Lovely...!

The thing I really like about you, Peter, is that you actually listen carefully to what another person is saying, you think about it dispassionately, and you look for common ground. You don't just assume that a battle for personal supremacy has begun and you must win it. A great many people don't listen to what another person says, they have no intention of seriously thinking in any constructive way about what the other person said, and they automatically assume there is and must be a conflict. They don't seek to find common ground, because what they are after is VICTORY....

I enjoy discussing things with you. It's a positive experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:43 PM

In the Guardian of the day (13th February), the Guardian ran this piece about the terrible twins (sort of), Darwin and Lincoln - Scientist v statesman: who can call the battle of the bicentennial men

First and last paragraphs:

"Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day two centuries ago, thanks be to the false god of coincidence. But which, you cry, was the greater? Was it the man who transformed our understanding of the human race, or the man who made the mightiest nation on Earth also the custodian of liberty and democracy? Was it the scientist or the statesman?...

...I believe in the primacy of politics as a human activity for the simple reason that it is more important than anything else. Science must dance to its tune, not vice versa. The calibre of politicians is a crucial determinant of human happiness. Theirs is not a profession but the consummation of social activity. That is why Darwin died in his bed and Lincoln to an assassin's bullet. That is why Darwin gets my admiration, but Lincoln gets my vote."

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:33 PM

It is absurd to do this kind of "who was greater than who" stuff -- it is demeaning to the whole dynamic of human history. As we are somehow to cherish oranges more than apples.

(Woody Allen said it best: "Hollywood is for the birds. They're always giving out prizes -- greatest dictator, Adolf Hitler!" )

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:33 PM

True, Peter, but the same holds true for "greatest decade for all music."    No obvious choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:47 PM

Well, Hollywood normally does what they figure will market best, and what is that? Generally speaking, it's a primitive and totally predictable cliche with cardboard "good guys" and "bad guys". Occasionally, though, Hollywood actually manages to produce an original movie. Or at least, some director does, anyway.

There is, indeed, no "greatest decade for music" and there never will be. It's a matter of personal taste, that's all, and personal taste is a direct result of one's personal experience, specially in the formative years of life. My Dad loved big band jazz, for example. It was the popular music of his youth. I didn't like it much at all, I liked the popular music of my youth which happened to be folk and rock. ;-) That's how it usually goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 04:48 AM

"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes."
                                                          - Walt Whitman

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 10:30 AM

Very good, Peter. Glad you noticed and did not try to sweep it under the rug.   Very apt quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 10:57 AM

Back to the topic:   It seems that those atheists who may try to claim that Darwin was atheist but did not declare his atheism due to concern for his wife need to come up with some evidence.

It appears that he was never an atheist--from his own personal conviction above all else.

Wikipedia is not of course infallible but on this topic it quotes Darwin--, late in life, 1881, after he had finally rejected Christianity-- in a meeting with an atheist who sought his support:

Darwin:   Why do you call yourselves Atheists?

Guests:    We did not commit the folly of god-denial (and) avoided with equal care the folly of god-assertion.

So Darwin pointed out that what they were describing was agnosticism, not atheism.

Darwin:   I am with you in thought but should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist.

Darwin was in fact by the end of his life an agnostic--but never an atheist.

It is also not reasonable to speculate that he would have become an atheist had he lived much longer.   The Dow Jones average went down 82 points yesterday. At that rate in 100 days it will be below zero.   Extrapolation of a trend into the future is groundless--and senseless.

In fact it makes eminent sense for a man who relied on empirical evidence in his thought to reject fundamentalist Christianity--but also reject atheism--since belief is a field in which there can obviously be no conclusive proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: DannyC
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 11:19 AM

Got a l'il weepy the last few nights singing: "Foresaken, almost human, He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone"... So there... I've got a decent Christian component (along with loads of other notions) floating around in the ole psyche. I fact, I'll take dollops of my old-time religion from the Theology of Liberation/Paolo Freire variety.

I live among many militant Creationists. I used to try to ignore them until they started to directly impact world affairs via the a$$hole from Crawford, TX.   Going forward I intend to take any and every opportunity (via public internet forums, street corner/doorstep/backfence conversations, whatever) to highlight the American Christian Right's strident and oppressive ignorance. We've got 'em on the run - no time to rest now.

(Don't fret mother, I promise I'll try to get to Mass tomorrow morn...)

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM

Absolutely, Darwin was evidence-mad. As I said, Darwin was pretty cagey. I guess the interesting thing (given the Lincoln connection) is that Lincoln's views on God were also pretty agnostic (although it is hard to call them agnostic, Lincoln's God seems to be like some universal force that works out truth in human affairs).   I think this is one of those places where the two men actually touch -- they paid a kind of deep meditative attention to the life of things. Different things, but there was this deep meditative attention that resulted in these extraordinary feelings for the pattern of things.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 11:28 AM

Ron... 'one' of the reasons he delayed publishing was out of concern for his wife. I think I am the only one who mentioned this, and I made no claims about Darwin's ultimate 'belief'.
In Darwin's day, it was not an easy thing to contemplate, much less take a public position on. Let's just say that he was 'aware' of the potential awkwardness of the implications of his research.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM

It's awkward for Christian/Islamic/Judaic fundamentalism, no doubt, but it's not awkward for a number of other varieties of spiritual belief.

Good quote from Walt Whitman, Peter. I would say from my observations all through life that everyone I know contradicts himself or herself....and quite frequently too! And so do I. ;-) It depends on the moment you catch them in, what mood they are in, what point they are trying to make, what argument they are pushing, etc. This is particularly evident with family members, spouses, and people one is in close relationship with. They contradict themselves thousands of times over in various ways, large and small, and they never even notice it, because they are always, after all, caught up in the moment... ;-)

If one were to sift back through the posts of any member of this forum and search for times when he or she has contradicted a previous statement, one could find many examples of it...but why spend the time to do that? It would be pointless, unless one was fighting a court case...or on a political campaign. ;-) Politicians are forever leaping with glee on something the other guy said that apparently contradicted something else he said, because the business of a politician is to destroy the other guy by any means, fair or foul.

Whitman was relaxed enough about himself...and forgiving enough...to freely and good-humouredly admit to the fact that he contradicts himself. He was also wise enough to recognize that he "contains multitudes" (as do we all). We are each not just a single version, a single outlook, or a single statement on reality, we are many and various. The only thing that never contradicts itself is a machine. That's because a machine doesn't think at all. It is lifeless. A machine would make the perfect defendant in a courtcase, wouldn't it? ;-) No inconsistencies whatsoever. It might also make the perfect politician. Hmmmm......!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 04:24 PM

As long as everybody is aware he was clear that he was an agnostic, not an atheist.   And that it was primarily from his own conviction, not out of respect for his wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:27 PM

Sounds okay to me...I think an agnostic is someone with the humility to admit that he doesn't know for sure if there is a God or not, and that seems like a sensible attitude for someone to take, given that there is no specific empirical evidence around to prove it or disprove it one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 10:13 AM

Exactly right, LH. And exactly my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 10:33 AM

Not only that, but there is no agreement as to what would count as empirical evidence.

(Woody Allen: "I'm not asking for any great miracles. I would even settle for Uncle Mischa picking up a check occasionally.")

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 10:48 AM

That's right, Peter. There isn't. Actually, there can't be, because spiritual things are, by definition, things that are happening "in spirit", not here in this dimension of existence. ;-) That is, they are presumed to be happening outside the parameters of this physical reality in which we seek and find empirical evidence. Although spiritual events may be observable in some way by various individuals, there is probably no way of assembling any empirical evidence, as it would be considered simply anecdotal evidence..."hearsay".

There have been some interesting instances of apparent ghostly phenomena that have shown up in photographs or on security cameras. I've seen some of that. That is evidence of something all right, but it's hard to say of exactly what... At any rate, it's not evidence of "God". At least I wouldn't think so. ;-)

There might well be ghosts, after all...and still be no God.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 11:18 AM

The evidentiary problem is made even more complicated by what the "spirit" is being asked to accomplish (Kant and Schopenhauer worked on this for many years). God has to at the same time create the incomparably vast universe of billions of galaxies, somehow isn't responsible for any evil in the universe, but cares intimately about whether my sister is going to be cured of her cancer.   Even the "spirit" is going to have to work really, really hard to do all of this by, let's say, this time tomorrow.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 11:43 AM

Darned right, Peter! ;-) That's a very anthropomorphic "God" you are describing there.

When we use terms like "good" or "evil", though, we are dealing in wholly subjective values strictly from our own point of view. Is it good when a squirrel is caught and killed by a marten? It's very "bad" from the squirrel's point of view, and the marten would appear to be "evil" from the perspective of the squirrel. It's very good from the marten's point of view, as he needs to eat. The marten would regard it as absurd that his actions should be termed "evil".

We humans are the same. When a CIA operative or a Taliban member tortures a prisoner, he thinks it's a "good" thing to do, because he thinks he's protecting America or defending Islam or something along that line. The prisoner, however, thinks it's a horribly evil thing to do, and so would anyone else who was in the prisoner's position.

That's how we assess "good" and "evil". "Good" means something beneficial...to us. "Evil" means something harmful...to us. But what about the other guy?

Is it good or evil to kill a cow and eat it? Is it good or evil to spank your child? Is it good or evil to fight a war? Is it good or evil to execute a murderer?

It's both! ;-) ...entirely depending on your own personal perspective in that situation.

If there is a God then wouldn't there also be some Divine viewpoint at that level of consciousness that completely transcends our subjective views on matters such as "good" and "evil"? Perhaps there is no good or evil ultimately...but there just is what is, period.

People work out their many ideas of good and evil and they incorporate them into their various cultures in order to sort out what to do and what not to do. The human mind needs some order and some "rules" so that it can make daily decisions. This is what people do...it doesn't necessarily mean that "God" would do the same thing. God may be fully at peace and in harmony with ALL of what we term "good and evil".

If so, it would be a very big disappointment to those who wish to see "the evil" punished and damned, wouldn't it? ;-)

To think that God has to accomplish anything is to assume that God is apart from "his" (or her) (or its) accomplishment. That may in itself be a faulty assumption. After all, how can what is infinite be apart from anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:55 PM

Kant argues that all human beings have some transcendent moral imperatives that imply -- and perhaps more strongly require -- some transcendance of some kind. The pressure of those imperatives on our conduct -- not necessarily the same in detail in all cultures -- is the puzzle.

Sociobiologists have a different set of answers to the same question.....

(and then of course there's beauty.......)

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:24 PM

Kant may well be right. I'd certainly like to think he is. Most humans are indeed aware of beauty, whether it is architectural beauty, physical beauty, the beauty of a pastoral scene, etc...they're aware of it as a concept they can relate to, and that's quite interesting. I wonder if animals are aware of beauty? And if not, then why are humans aware of it? Is there a divine spark of intelligence in humanity that links every human being to a much greater source of awareness? Again, I'd certainly like to think there is. I suspect that there is. I cannot prove that there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:07 PM

A nice little discussion on this point at Lost Borders --

"Darwin wrote that he "sometimes felt much difficulty in understanding" why species have some traits that seem unnecessary for their survival. Unimportant organs were an example of such traits. Even more difficult to understand than unnecessary organs was beauty, superfluous beauty. Some naturalists in Darwin's time questioned the adequacy of natural selection to explain the origin of the species because it did not seem able to account for beauty. Darwin wrote, "They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety." Darwin considered their argument that beauty had its own reason, a separate reason from the preservation of life, to be a serious problem for his own argument that natural selection accounts for the origin of the species. The stakes in this dispute were high. They still are. In his words, "This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory."

Darwin argued that unnecessary organs and traits that are merely beautiful were once necessary for the survival of progenitors and had been inherited by the descendent species even though they were no longer necessary for survival. He argued that natural selection would have eliminated these traits if they caused harm to the descendent species, but would not necessarily have eliminated them if they caused no harm.

A final conclusion about such things seems beyond the reach of science.

Much remains at stake here. Beauty remains potentially fatal to Darwin's argument. If beauty is superfluous to survival, and yet exists, then perhaps God not natural selection was, after all, responsible for the origin of the species."

Well, hardly fatal. There are other beauties than organic beauties to contend with....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:46 PM

Peter, you have hit on precisely what troubles me about Darwin's Theory. I think it's partly right. I think it's probably right as far as it goes, but that it simply doesn't go far enough. I do not think evolution is entirely or solely about survival issues (natural selection being based on survival issues), I think it's about a number of things and that survivability of a lifeform is just one of them. I think there are other ideals of perfection embodied in Nature as well as the prosaic issues of survival.

I think it's a reflection of a highly intelligent process which is concerned about considerably more than mere survival.

If you convince humans that they are products of mere "natural selection", you have, in effect, robbed them of believing in any higher purpose. You might as well rob them of their hearts and their souls. You might as well rob them of all poetry and nobility and beauty and romance. You might as well convince them they are no more valuable than dirt, and that nothing they do ultimately matters. It's unthinkable to me to do that to people. (and I don't think for a moment that Darwin intended to do that, by the way, but I think the widespread exclusive adoption of his theory has unwittingly helped to do that subliminally to modern humans) We have lost much of our idealism in the modern age, and we have produced horrible things which would have been unthinkable not too long ago.   As with Communist theory, it doesn't bode well for the psychology of a people when you succeed in convincing them that man lives "by bread alone" and that their place in life is just a meaningless end result of nothing else than a natural survival process.

You have taken something away from people when you do that...something noble, something beautiful. You don't need a concept of a "God" to have that something in your life, but you need to believe that your life is about higher ideals of some kind, not just survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 08:42 PM

Well, I suppose you could argue that it is amazing that nature -- natural selection -- ended up producing consciousness (Hans Jonas, the eminent German philosopher argued this way). I personally think that nature and natural selection are much weirder than we think -- for example, scientists are currently enthralled with horizontal selection (a lot of species seem to hybridize in ways that really, really complicate the purity of standard selection).   We know almost nothing about nature when you really study it.

Beauty is odd -- hard to think of it as completely delusional -- and then there is mathematics. Mathematics is just so strange. That is even beforfe we get into quantum physics.

The two simplest things in the universe are completely inexplicable: time and space.

So any discussion is really presumptuous.....

yours ever,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 09:11 PM

Yes, I agree. It is presumptuous unless you admit to yourself at the start that you simply don't know, and probably never will...and then you explore various possibilities with that degree of humility. I agree that we know very little as yet about Nature. My own guess...and that's all it is...is that consciousness didn't arise out of Nature (which would indeed be amazing...extraordinary!), but that Nature arose out of consciousness. I think consciousness comes first...then come all the various manifestations that arise out of it. I think the Universe is entirely built of consciousness, projected into forms and structures of various kinds...rather as a movie is projected onto a screen. Our dimension of time and space is like the screen, and everything that appears here is like the movie.

This does not mean that I think an anthropomorphic God figure made the world in 7 days. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 03:00 AM

In case it interests you, you are a Yogacara Buddhist.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 12:44 PM

Really? Dang! I didn't know I was... ;-) Thanks for telling me.

I'm going to go look it up and do some reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:48 PM

God is not beautiful. Darwin is. Darwin was a great appreciator of beauty and Evolution is really beautiful when you think about it. He made some reference to peacock feathers being beautiful but not for survival but this doesn't mean he didn't appreciate beauty.

Consciousness comes from the brain, not some external mist. The knowledge we receive in our observation of nature comes from the brain, not some cosmic weird "consciousness".

Not to discuss what we know is presumptuous because this is what is in our genetic code.
Communication is a constant for our species. The sharing of ideas gives our lives meaning.

The idea that no one can know anything is ridiculous. We can know parts of anything very well as science has taught us. We have learned quite a lot about nature. The information about it is being discovered every day and is not in some quizzical void.

Evolution is a process but not always even.

Higher purpose doesn't come from the denigration of Evolution. In fact, Evolution insists on a higher purpose. Survival is beautiful. It is life and that needs no other higher purpose.

Sociobiologists have been misinterpreted by those who really don't understand it.
It's been given a deterministic label which it never purported to espouse.

Idealism in the modern age has been replaced by a more genuine understanding of our world. The idealism of the past was vague by comparison and embraced much violence and prejudice.

Darwin started with a viewpoint closer to creationism and as he studied, he changed.

Actually, agnosticism and atheism are just labels for degree of non-belief. Somehow, it's more fashionable today to declare agnosticism (which really is an admission of ignorance).
Atheism is not ignorance with the issue. It simply states that until valid proof exists that there is a god, then it means unbelief. (That simple). It's really hard to know what label Darwin put upon himself for what reason but it must be stated that he came from a theological point-of-view. I'm sure that he was conflicted on this issue.

The teleological argument about a divine creator and an ontological argument about the existence of a "soul" are easily disputed. The cosmological argument can never be finally brought to any conclusion.

Any claim of an intervention or cause of Evolution by a god has not been tested and is purely wishful thinking. Evolution flies in the face of a designer god. Many "mistakes" are made in Evolution and if it were designed, the designer would have had to been mad.

Mark Twain said it best. "Faith is believing in something you know ain't so".

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 10:47 PM

Ah, quotations!


"Man is a credulous animal and must believe something. In the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."      
Bertrand Russell


"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 10:49 PM

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

Whoever wrote that never studied Talmud.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 10:50 PM

"Theology is the finding of bad reasons for things we are going to believe anyway" G E Moore

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 11:04 PM

Strinsinger - Did I suggest that Darwin didn't appreciate beauty? I'm sure he appreciated it as much as most people do, and more than many do. You ain't gettin' my drift at all, son. ;-) I already know for sure that life is about far more than survival. It's about many things, and survival is just one of them. There are situations where death in the service of others or of a worthy ideal is a far nobler thing than mere survival, and people have always known that. That's why they have heroes like the men at the Alamo or a million other examples of that sort of thing. Even animals will do that, and they will do it for LOVE. Dogs have given their lives in the defence of those they loved. If they were thinking only of survival, they would run away and save themselves.

I put it to you that life is about LOVE more than it is about anything else at all...and I am not talkin' boy-girl romance when I say LOVE, I'm talking about caring for someone else to the point that you will defend them no matter what the cost is to you if the need is truly there. One can also love one's country that way...or one's military unit...or one's friend or children or family...or one's pet. If it's real love, then you will sacrifice on their behalf. If it's not...well, then you'll mainly think just of your own survival.

Mark Twain, by the way, changed his opinion of faith after he spent nine years studying the life of Joan of Arc. You should read his biography of her...you'd be very surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:16 AM

Twain's essay on Joan is one of the greatest things he ever wrote -- that she was the most extraordinary human being ever. Curiously enough, given this discussion, the whole point of the essay is that the environment around her was of absolutely no importance.   She just erupted out of this pig-ridden village and at seventeen commanded the armies of France. Completely inexplicable: except for one thing.....She talked to God and the angels all the time.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:54 AM

I think it is the greatest thing he ever wrote, Peter, although that's debatable, of course, but Twain himself said that for him it was more important than any other book he wrote...and that he worked much harder to write it. The others, essentially, were just written off the top of his head. In the case of Joan he had to do many years of research before he even commenced on the book.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:30 PM

This is the essay (not the bigger book):

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stj05003.htm

It's the sort of essay that makes you want to rush around the room with your head on fire....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 02:07 PM

Thanks for the link to the essay. It was the longer book I was speaking of...but either way, Twain's writing is absolutely inspired.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:45 PM

Consciousness comes from the brain?

More like it comes from everything from quantum fluctuations to gigantic colliding branes. The brain is just a storage, sensory receptor and activating system with a plethora of feedback loops and evolved systems that have proved most successful for survival.

Ah if only Charlie could see the genome proofs for his theory today.

Subject: RE: BS: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!!
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 05:42 AM

Perhaps he might like to talk to Dr Aric Sigman about it. This doctor is reported to claim "a lack of face-to-face networking could alter the way genes work". Hmmm. I wonder how that happens.