Evolation

• Welcome to the BOL Forum on Evolutionary Psychology by John Grohol, 3/19/97
  • (...)
    
    • God and natural selection...why not? by Mary Elizabeth Coggins MSW MSA LSW, 5/17/98
      
      

I find these interesting, and valuable, questions.

While I am personally not favorably disposed to traditional "God" concepts, I would be wise to probe the roots of my own bias. The same goes for evolutionary psychologists, or evolutionists more generally.

Last year I went to a conference in Arizona. It was about evolutionary psychology, and the new revelations that follow. There was a strong sense of righteousness - the chosen few with deep insights. Near the end of the conference a New York psychiatrist stood up, and challenged the crowd to use their own logic (applied to others) in evaluating themselves. The chosen few, out to save the world. He challenged the audience for its air of superiority. It was the reaction, a cold hostility among many, that struck me most strongly. Rather like denying Christ in a fundamentalist church. Seemed to me that the reaction made his point!

God/gods are certainly powerful images, used by people in all cultures throughout recorded history. One could indeed argue that they are a necessary (at least useful) invention to keep the fabric of society together, thus securing benefits for the individual. Few evolutionists would have trouble with some version of that view.

At a more extreme level, one might argue that, as in individual development, evolution had to reach a stage of humanity before God/gods were relevant. A two year old is not expected to have the same moral standards as an adult; human ancestors had not reached the reflective capacity of modern humans. In some ways each statement is trivially true. The images of God/gods only work for, as they say, "the prepared mind".

As an undergraduate I once wrote an essay, "On Evolation", a sophmoric attempt to link evolutionary history with ideas of revelation. It was crude, as are my current thoughts, but offered a similar suggestion to the one offered by Mary here. Until human minds reach a certain developmental or evolutionary (both, of course) phase, then even the idea of revelation is nonsensical. Reflections on morality are nonsensical. Evolutionary biologists do reflect on morality, but from a different starting point than has been common historically. (E.g. - 'why these myths and not those'?)

The creation of matter (of anything, for that matter) remains a mystery. Evolutionary thought (at least biological evolution) starts with the assumption of pre-existing matter. The mechanics of evolution are increasingly well worked out, as are the mechanics of lungs, hearts, and brains. That's the stuff of science.

But scientists are, alas, humans. They create a world (universe) view from the windows of their own explorations. They extrapolate beyond the evidence, and "fill in" the gaps. We all do it, like it or not. That's ok, as long as we realize the fact.

I had a nice brief chat with Huston Smith (religious scholar) about a year ago, and found little conflict. To me his God (gods) were images reflecting mysteries of human minds...story telling minds. But that was about all I could say. I could not say anything about the roots ("true roots") of these stories, and never shall be able to.

Maybe indeed evolutionists will take second and third looks at God/gods just as theologians will take second and third looks at evolution. The fostering of morality, of which Mary writes, is certainly a puzzle to be reckoned with in each case.

Its good to have these issues raised, if for no other reason than to remind us there are many things for which we have not answers, only myths. Myths themselves reflect something basic about our natures. They can have multiple origins, and I agree with Mary that these can not only live side by side, but also enrich the perspectives taken on either side.

My side leans towards the mechanical. When I look at the evidence I see spotty facts and lots of inference. In such cases other viewpoints are not only welcome, but essential.

"a psychological adaptation, promoting order?" - seems a good question to begin the exploration.

• ...on God and chocolate... by Mary Elizabeth Coggins, 5/21/98
  • further speculation by bill, 5/29/98
    • On Religion... by Mat Huff, 7/14/98