Evolution happened, but it was a guided process by a divine or intelligent being — flannel jesus

I must say this is a cop-out somehow more ridiculous than the "God made the Big Bang then pissed off".

"Evolution happened naturally ..." :monkey:

:up:

I must say this is a cop-out somehow more ridiculous than the "God made the Big Bang then pissed off". — Lionino

Isn't this just the definition of deism?

I don't know what that is. God leaving reminds me of Epikuros' stance on God more than anything. But his position was of course more sophisticated than modern religious people who think themselves clever for doing God of the Gaps at everything, and the connection between gods and the universe isn't stated anywhere in fragments.

Is it to keep one or another of us from being tricked into believing that the gods care for men[...]? — Arrian, Diatribes of Epictetus, I.20.19

A happy and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness — Doctrine 1

But Epikuros was also a materialist:

they [Epicureans] held the gods to be immortal and indestructible (how this might work in a materialist universe remains unclear) — SEP

But²:

Ancient critics thought the Epicurean gods were a thin smoke-screen to hide Epicurus’ atheism, and difficulties with a literal interpretation of Epicurus’ sayings on the nature of the gods (for instance, it appears inconsistent with Epicurus’ atomic theory to hold that any compound body, even a god, could be immortal) have led some scholars to conjecture that Epicurus’ ‘gods’ are thought-constructs, and exist only in human minds as idealizations, i.e., the gods exist, but only as projections of what the most blessed life would be. — IEP

I'm really curious what the thinkers here think of evolution. — flannel jesus

Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". The randomness of the mutation of genes that bring about an organism's constitution that may or may not encourage survival or reproduction has no "evolutionary dimension" to it, and so to talk about human existence in terms of evolution is to say only that whatever we are, it is simply fortunate enough to have survived and reproduced through the geological ages.

There is nothing beyond this that evolution can speak to regarding qualitative features of our existence, and therefore evolution is not at all a useful tool of discovery as to the nature of what we really "are". This is good news for those who want to take issue with the scientific reductionism that plagues our understanding of what it means to be human. Evolution is vacuous at doing so.

I must say this is a cop-out somehow more ridiculous than the "God made the Big Bang then pissed off". — Lionino

Worse than this. Before one is a deist, one has to affirm that world was made by God at all, then one is stuck with defining terms, terms like 'god' and divine will of intent (for what is creation without intent?), the conditions of creation that are otherworldly (certainly God did not create as we do, out of wood and steel and electronics.

The point is prior to complaining about something absurd, one has to see that the absurdity assumes a more fundamental absurdity, a metaphysical one: Is one even making any sense at all in the question? A bit like complaining that the measurements for a flat earth lack symmetry, or the like.

Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". — Astrophel

Where did you get that impression?

don't know what that is. — Lionino

"What is deism in simple terms?
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( theism ). belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it."

DEISM Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

The point is prior to complaining about something absurd, one has to see that the absurdity assumes a more fundamental absurdity, a metaphysical one: Is one even making any sense at all in the question? A bit like complaining that the measurements for a flat earth lack symmetry, or the like. — Astrophel

I'm not a deist, but I don't see that the position that something created the universe any more or any less problematic than to say that the universe was uncaused. The deist needn't posit anything to do with intent or purpose either. He need only say the universe was caused by some cause. As to what caused the deistic god to come into being, the deist lays the mystery there, in the god, the thing that defies causation.

Whether this solution ultimately resolves anything, I doubt it, but I don't think anything truly resolves the question of the origin of our existence.

I'm really curious what the thinkers here think of evolution. — flannel jesus

I believe I’m most certainly an outlier, but I’ll answer the question just the same.

In short, evolution happened naturally, such that Nature itself is thoroughly teleological in its nature (I’ll, however imperfectly, lean on Aristotelian metaphysics for this affirmation). Given any system of what is now commonly enough termed “panpsychism”, this naturally occurring, teleological evolution then occurred since the commencement of the current cosmos long before life came into being (here granting a Big Bounce model of the universe). It’s very cumbersome to properly explain via justifications, but there you have it.

I didn’t select the first option due to the implicit differences in what Nature is deemed to entail: namely, modern day naturalism will tend to associate teleology with the supernatural, which is distinctly different than the position I endorse regarding Nature’s immanent characteristics.

That said, neither does this perspective fit into any of the other options, including the third option. Rather than being guided by a superlative psyche, evolution is pivotally guided by natural constraints in conjunction with the will of all beings (which thereby actively undergo the process of evolution). For one example, in sexual selection, lifeforms' choices regarding mates (this in tune with Darwin’s own works) will “guide” the outcomes of evolution in conjunction with natural constraints on what can and cannot be—such that each such individual lifeform is then “a being (of varying degrees of intelligence) that guides the trajectory of evolution” (akin to being a drop of water in an ocean, from which the ocean itself is constituted). This metaphorical ocean consisting of the total sum of all coexistent lifeforms being—either genotypically or, for me far more importantly, phenotypically—that via which variations emerge; with these variations again being culled, or selected for, by what in ultimate appraisals are universal constraints.

I’m not here intending to argue for all this. Just wanted to address the curiosity regarding different vantages on the issue of evolution.

"What is deism in simple terms?
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( theism ). belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it." — Hanover

The theological equivalent to "sognaresexual" and "herstory".

The theological equivalent to "sognaresexual" and "herstory". — Lionino

You've never read Venus on the Half-Shell, then?

As was told, the protagonist who wants an answer to "why are we birthed only to suffer and die?" at long last arrives on that planet where God lives. The inhabitants of that planet, God's favorite creatures, these being beer-drinking giant cockroaches of extreme intelligence, inform the protagonist that God decided to forget himself a long time ago and that now no one knows where he's at. So the protagonist's question gets answered by the leader of the cockroach bunch instead with, "Well, why not?".

The best take on Deism I've so far come to know.

I don't think anything truly resolves the question of the origin of our existence. — Hanover

Suppose there was no "origin"? Suppose, as Spinoza reasons, existence is eternal (and merely reconfigures itself every tens of billions years (à la Epicurus ... or R. Penrose))? I'm partial to as parsimonious a metaphysics as can be conceived.

The theological equivalent to "sognaresexual" and "herstory". — Lionino

I'm not sure I follow the analogy.

My take on deism is that it is not posited to give you something to pray to, to bring meaning into your life, or to satisfy anything other than addressing the question of where the universe came from. It's more analagous to evolution theory than to theism.

If I were to ask why you believe in evolution, you'd say it's because that's what the evidence shows. You wouldn't think to answer that question by explaining to me how evolution gives your life meaning or purpose. So too with the deist. He claims logic and reason leads him to believe that something created the universe, but he wouldn't think how he needs to explain how that belief gives life meaning.

You've never read Venus on the Half-Shell, then? — javra

I will admit I have not read most books out there, philosophy or not.

I'm not sure I follow the analogy. — Hanover

A non-word made up in modernity by people who most likely did not understand the mechanisms of their own language, giving a label to a variety of something meanwhile they ignore all the other endless varieties. A theist is a theist no matter the flavour, one doesn't get a little special badge for one's own variety because one is lofty from one's complete ignorance of grammar — essentially redditry/Dunning-Kruger.
And I just made a super awkward sentence because I didn't want people to think I am referring to someone specific by saying "you".

Sorry if it is rude but there is no nice way to judge it, the individuals involved should have not committed the crime instead.

:up:

If there isn't, please post what sort of option I should have included to match what you think. — flannel jesus

The theory of evolution has token value; its relevance is in declaring it in order to gain social approval.

Suppose there was no "origin"? Suppose, as Spinoza reasons, existence is eternal (and merely reconfigures itself every tens of billions years)? I'm partial to a parsimonious metaphysics. — 180 Proof

I'd suggest that the word "eternal" is not a word found in physics' books, but is a borrowed theological word. The word infinity avoids the religious baggage, but it too is purely conceptual, not fully coherent, and certainly not empirically verifiable.

If you say X is eternal and X is all there is and from X all new combinations and variations arise, how do you parse out your claims from the deist's? It sounds remarkably theistic actually, particularly those traditions that give a nod to pantheism and consider the implications of Spinoza: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1807957/jewish/Pantheism-and-Judaism.htm

How is it a "cop out?" It seems to flow naturally from panentheism and the classical understanding of Providence. The idea that nature itself is a theophany, organized in accordance with Providence according to the Divine Will and that nothing happens miraculously "for no reason," is pretty much the standard in the classical/medieval tradition. Evolution seems to fit in there fine, except for the time table, but even among the Patristics there is plenty of disagreement about the plausibility of a strict 144 hour interpretation of creation.

Only in the post-Reformation world where nature is essentially a distinct, subsistent entity and God is no longer being itself does it make sense to talk about the creation of man as a sort of Humean miracle where God acts in creation in a sui generis manner that is distinct from God's acts in nature. In such a view, God is less than fully transcedent and becomes an entity that sits outside the world. In this view, God is to some degree is defined by what God is not, and indeed is defined in terms of finitude (Hegel's bad infinite), and this also causes follow on problems for the interaction of freedom and Providence.

Notably, the way the question is framed here implies this distinction. Evolution occured "naturally" or God guided it. I don't think this is a proper distinction for Origen, St. Maximus, St. Thomas, etc. St. Paul's writings frequently invoke the same event twice with human agents the focus of one telling and God's agency in the center. This makes sense from the frame of a God who is "within everything but contained in nothing," (St. Augustine) but becomes very different if it is taken as a sort of causal relation between a God who lies outside the world acting in response to nature (e.g. in Romans 1 we have people abandoning God for idols and then apparently God gives them over to the idols they have already turned to — God for some reason is making people do what they are already choosing to do, something that crops up in many places). None of the thinkers mentioned thought God formed man out of clay using hands, or that God had a body that walked across the Earth. "Since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone" (Acts 17:29).

This seems pretty essential to the metaphysics, not something ad hoc; it is God "in whom we live and move and have our being," (Acts 17:28, repeated every Mass). And this jives with interpretations of the two creation stories in Gen 1 and Gen 2, with Gen 1 describing the birth of eidos through Divine Logos in Gen 1 (Object/Ground - Logos) and the second as focusing on the material creation and introduction of spirit (Object/Ground - Interpretant/Spirit).

The Jewish tradition contains these sorts of conceptions as well. IIRC, Rashi also has it that Gen 1 relates to forms.

I also wonder about the possibility of 'no origins' as such, with cycles in the earth and the wider cosmic sense, including other worlds and universes.

I agree with much of your post in regard to the issue of evolution. But I would like to verify what you interpret by the term "Deism".

Are you using a different sense of the term than that of the proverbial God as watchmaker—such that the whole of the universe is equivalent to a watch which, once built, is then left to operate on its own devices?

I ask because this just specified sense of Deism so far appears to me to alight to this metaphysical position:

Only in the post-Reformation world where nature is essentially a distinct, subsistent entity and God is no longer being itself does it make sense to talk about the creation of man as a sort of Humean miracle where God acts in creation in a sui generis manner that is distinct from God's acts in nature. In such a view, God is less than fully transcedent and becomes an entity that sits outside the world. In this view, God is to some degree is defined by what God is not, and indeed is defined in terms of finitude (Hegel's bad infinite), and this also causes follow on problems for the interaction of freedom and Providence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Whereas, were Deism to be understood as strictly addressing the belief that "God/Divinity can be know through reason alone and that revelations should be shunned as evidence", this so far seems to me to be utterly nondescript, for it can then encompass most anything theistic: e.g., everything from monotheism to pantheism, if not even animism, can thereby then be validly claimed to be forms of Deism. But this so far doesn't seem right to me. Or am I not understanding the issue properly?

I wasn't thinking of deism at all. I was thinking of the understanding of the relationship between God, Providence, and nature in ancient and medieval Christianity and Judaism.

Ah. That explains that then. Thanks.

Where did you get that impression? — wonderer1

Are you saying the random mutation of genes that leads to superior survival and reproduction is intentional in some way??

That evolution occured and is ongoing is indubitable, but what it means is another matter. (And I don't buy that it means 'whatever you want it to mean', either. :rage: )

Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". — Astrophel

That all evolution is in essence entirely accidental is a mischaracterization of evolution via natural selection. In short, NS is the favoring of certain varieties of lifeforms by natural constraints—such that this metaphorical favoring by Nature is itself not a matter of chance. The following is a more longwinded but robust explanation that to me amounts to the same:

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.

Variation of traits, both genotypic and phenotypic, exists within all populations of organisms. However, some traits are more likely to facilitate survival and reproductive success. Thus, these traits are passed onto the next generation. These traits can also become more common within a population if the environment that favours these traits remain fixed. If new traits become more favored due to changes in a specific niche, microevolution occurs. If new traits become more favored due to changes in the broader environment, macroevolution occurs. Sometimes, new species can arise especially if these new traits are radically different from the traits possessed by their predecessors.

The likelihood of these traits being 'selected' and passed down are determined by many factors. Some are likely to be passed down because they adapt well to their environments. Others are passed down because these traits are actively preferred by mating partners, which is known as sexual selection. Female bodies also prefer traits that confer the lowest cost to their reproductive health, which is known as fecundity selection. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

---------

Are you saying the random mutation of genes that leads to superior survival and reproduction is intentional in some way?? — Astrophel

While @wonderer1 will speak for himself, for my part, not everything that can be teleological will necessarily be intentional, i.e. due to the intentions of agents. Gene mutations, here assuming a teleological cosmos to begin with, will then be an example of such.

That stated, the more intelligent the lifeform the less genotype will play a direct role in the lifeform’s successful survival and reproduction—and, by extension, in natural selection. It is not genotype but phenotype (which will include behavior, and which is heavily dependent on environmental history, typically coined “nurture”) that determines which carnivore gets to eat sufficient herbivores so as to then reproduce, and which herbivore gets to sufficiently evade carnivores so as to then reproduce. And the more intelligent the phenotype, the more intentions will play a significant role in this very process wherein certain varieties of lifeforms are favored by natural constraints.

As to different varieties of lifeforms emerging from intentions, there is sexual selection at play in the animal kingdom (as well as in at least some plants and fungi) and, more recently, it’s been proposed to occur in bacteria as well. Wherever one deems for intentions to start in the evolutionary tree, intentions will then logically play a role in evolution via sexual selection—this such as in terms of which variations of lifeforms get to come about in the next generation.

not everything that can be teleological will necessarily be intentional, — javra

Right - but isn’t there some sense in which even the simplest life forms act intentionally? Not consciously, of course - but a living thing by definition seeks to maintain itself and continue to exist. So I wonder if in some abstract sense whether that adds up to a very primitive intentionality.

Right - but isn’t there some sense in which even the simplest life forms act intentionally? Not consciously, of course - but a living thing by definition seeks to maintain itself and continue to exist. So I wonder if in some abstract sense whether that adds up to a very primitive intentionality. — Wayfarer

Yes, good point. This is where philosophical issues enter the picture ... the problem of other minds applied to real world applications regarding lesser lifeforms, this all the way down to prokaryotic monocellular organisms. And once you get to this juncture, there then is no rationally easy divide between monocellular organisms and the individual somatic cells of a multicellular organism, to include individual neurons to boot.

I've read Thompson's Mind in Life, but don't recall him addressing intentions per se. Maybe someone else with better recollection can chip in here.

In short, however, though I have my biases of opinion which lead me to the conclusion that there is at the very least some minuscule measure of intentionality in all life, I don't know of any means to properly justify this. Again, it relates to the problem of other minds as pertains to lifeforms whose awareness types are quite alien to us.

I will however say that I cannot conceive of intention occurring devoid of an intended goal, this as done by a consciousness or not. The two - an intention and its intent - go together like "unmarried" and "bachelor". And this intending of a goal, to me at least, necessitates forethought of one type or another - however alien such forethought might be to our own - and, hence, as per Thompson, some at least rudimentary kind of mind. Ameba can, for one extreme example, be observed to behave in such manners: intending to consume smaller amebas as their prey and to avoid larger amebas as their predators, and exhibiting forethought regarding what they perceive as other in the process - obviously, this devoid of any CNS. (Ameba have also be evidenced capable of learning new behaviors, which again to me logically necessitates some form of forethought.) But, also obviously, this is far removed from modern day consensus on what in fact is the case.

With all that stated, I'll also mention the following for the kick of it: I have at times pondered the possibility that the very primitive intentionality you've addressed might conceivable occur within every single neuron building new synapses for the sake of stimulation and nourishment. Such that the neuron's nucleus holds some, again, exceedingly primitive intentional role in the firing of its axon subsequent to sufficient dendritic stimulation. On one hand is sheer sci. fi., but on the other it's one extreme of where this allowance for all life being in some way intention-endowed, and thereby intentional, goes.

I've rambled a bit, but in my defense its very late at night where I'm at. :smile:

If you say X is eternal and X is all there is and from X all new combinations and variations arise, how do you parse out your claims from the deist's? — Hanover

Easily. Simply put – Deism posits a separate X & Y: 'the uncreated creator deity' and its 'created world(s)/universe(s)' in which the latter is temporal and the former eternal (i.e. causa sui). However, my "claim" is acosmist (Spinoza) and/or atomist (Epicurus), therefore, in either case, not deistic.

I also wonder about the possibility of 'no origins' ... — Jack Cummins

This corresponds to 'no edges' (in space). If existence (i.e. everything that exists) is the effect, then its cause (i.e. origin) is non-existence (i.e. nothing-ness that is also the absence of any conditions for any possibility of existence) – which is nonsense, no?

This corresponds to 'no edges' (in space). If existence (i.e. everything that exists) is the effect, then its cause (i.e. origin) is non-existence (i.e. nothing-ness that is also the absence of any conditions for any possibility of existence) – which is nonsense, no? — 180 Proof

Well said.

----

As a general apropos to possible religious/spiritual views, Buddhism, for one example, has had this creed of "no origin" for a few millennia now.

Where did you get that impression?
— wonderer1

Are you saying the random mutation of genes that leads to superior survival and reproduction is intentional in some way?? — Astrophel

Well no. I was asking a question regarding the following claim.

Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". — Astrophel

Do you understand the role that natural selection plays in evolution, and that natural selection is not random?