Creative Evolution

Jan 2006
3,232
3
Columbus, Ohio
#11
Christian existentialism is something entirely different from what I was saying. Now Kierkegaard got it right when he placed the idea on personal choice and responsibility, but it takes away the point of my earlier argument, because Kierkegaard's existentialism claims that people should accept their responsibility of choice, but choice of what way they should be subjects to God, and please God.



Atheist existentialism is more optimistic an humanizing, because without the figure of God for one to spend one's life attempting to please or be beneath, it raises the human into a new light in which he or see defines their own existence. That people take full responsibility for their own actions. That human life isn't the embodiment of sin. And I believe that it makes people value life much more, in light of coming to terms with the absence of an afterlife. That what we are living is it, is the big wow. Not simply a period in which we are tested for obedience to a God.



One of Sartre's main points was that "existence precedes essence." In other words, your life is yours to create. It's original, and imaginative, not being drawn by the forces of fate and God. That we shouldn't write ourselves off as a victim of various forces, but we are who we are, and we define ourselves who we are. It's not the self or soul that theologians are talking about; this doesn't exist when you are 'completely devoted to faith' as Kierkegaard believes as the best way to live.
 
Dec 2006
3,911
0
#12
Kat, I do see your point. The ability to choose what becomes our very own essence, our very own meaning. And that without a God factor in there, one need not be encumbered by guilt or concern for appeasing a divine source for the life itself. One need not wear a label that cannot be argued with, a label found in a holy book: sinner or saint.



What you are saying is that you believe that your life has taken on a fullness and a purpose in itself by unbelief. And that many people do rather count fulfillment and find purpose by attaching the making of what they become to belonging to god and service to him.



I see that. I see possibly how religion accomplishes that. And now that very basic catalyst to what one becomes is in many ways what can damage or destroy the essence of the individual. Immobilize volition. Hide its practical use and meaning.



When I nearly deconverted, I was all of a sudden at a red light in the journey. Beforehand, I was racing down the road of life, sensing the adventure of shedding all things false, all things superfluous. All things that could have been stifling what is essentially me. All things that could have been a codependence to another (God) , and from that distancing myself from true methods of fulfillment. As autonomous and yet as needing fellow man. Statements like a simple thank you when someone affirms a Christian are often met with, "The glory goes to God" or in the recognition of need in life, one is prompted by religion to claim no need but God. When indeed, we are spiritual, intelligent, free agents with feelings, senses and physical, material need for we do exist in all those realms.



I did come back to faith, not so much by choice as by need. Desperate, not for the purpose that many find in faith, but for the relationship. I had established my whole life on what I had counted true revelation of a contant presence of perfect love. God, strong and right, good and wise. I did come back to faith for joy. If you have watched the movie:The Polar Express, I am like the little boy who was given a bell by Santa. First he heard it, then he possessed it, then upon losing it, he was saddened. Not for counting it a very purposeful gift, but saddened for counting it a joy to hear, and a memory of an encounter with Santa Claus. Relationship.



Speaking of movies though and simply looking at what life eternal would mean should it be spent in a "Here we are, here we stay" paradigm...one which does seem to demonstrate the points you make, I share now my little take on a movie I adore: Tuck Everlasting.





(Really Kat, if you or anyone else reading here has not seen this movie, rent it today! It is so tenderly done and so insightful about the human condition!)





". . . Today, today of all days, after last night of all nights...with challenges present and heartbreak, as much as the sunlight of a new day, tonight as I yawn and the distant train can be heard passing, whistling and rumbling over the tracks, I can sigh. I can cry. But I can take comfort in knowing that seasons change, life goes on, and with more to cry about, yeah, sure...there also will be happy smiles and more to laugh about. Dancing, running, growing, learning and living! Living is such fulfilling and urgent business in light of dying...

So here is my little post:



Something I found kind of sweet, but with a truth to it is the Disney movie "Tuck Everlasting"...everlasting life was certainly not portrayed as such a treat afterall.



"What we Tucks have you can't call it living. We just... are. We're like rocks, stuck at the side of a stream. "

And again..."Don't be afraid of death, Winnie. Be afraid of the unlived life. "



If there is anything I am learning by putting life as primary to all else, with or without gods...is to boldly and adventurously live Life!



I don't know if it is clear to all what I am saying, but yes a life must be felt to be lived, and time must be woven into it to feel, to sense and perceive it, it must be passing. ...



At least life as we now know it, and whether by heaven or by evolutionary leaps into a yet unknown sphere of this that we call Life, we know it best by spending it to the end fully."





I hear you sharing that same thought, "Be afraid of the unlived life."

To which I can only hope that I do by choices I make, pursuits I take up herald with my very being this quote from yet another movie, Mona Lisa Smile,



"Not all who wander are aimless. Especially not those who seek truth beyond tradition, beyond definition, beyond the image. "



OD
 
Dec 2006
3,911
0
#13
I was going through my saved drafts in my email program and found this quote that I had evidently received in an email or found online.



I think it adds a bit too in our discussion about existentialism...



May God grant me the serenity

to accept the people I cannot change,

The courage to change the one I can,

and the wisdom to know it's me.

~ Robert Peck




OD





 
Apr 2005
2,181
119
Poplar, MT
#14
Kat,



I am well aware of the primordial soup theory and the experiment that was conducted by Miller. Miller's experiment proved that you can get something from nothing. However, the Miller experiment does not prove the Theory of Evolution in regards to Macroevolution. While in the 1950's it provided much excitement, and while it can still be found in textbooks today, since the 1980's the experiment has been refuted.



In 1998, National Geographic ran an article entitled, "The Rise of Life on Earth," March 1998, p. 68. I will quote from that article.



"Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.



That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup."


So it would seem that the Miller experiment while proving that amino acids could come from a primordial soup, the basis of his premise is faulty because it does not match the actual conditions of what existed on Earth at the time of the so-called origin.



This is just a single example of the problems with the Miller experiment. There are a whole list of others, however, this one directly challenges the basic premise of how life began on earth, that Miller hoped to have proved. By refuting this premise, all other premises based on this experiment no longer matter to the argument.



dmk
 
Feb 2006
12,705
1,933
California
#15
I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong.---John Lennon
 
Apr 2005
2,181
119
Poplar, MT
#16
And ye shall be like gods........



And since that time what have we found, war, disease, terror, heartache, and no matter what we try, the problems continue to arise and the solution never work.



dmk
 
Mar 2006
1,057
4
Islamabad
#17
sgtdmski said:
Kat,



I am well aware of the primordial soup theory and the experiment that was conducted by Miller. Miller's experiment proved that you can get something from nothing. However, the Miller experiment does not prove the Theory of Evolution in regards to Macroevolution. While in the 1950's it provided much excitement, and while it can still be found in textbooks today, since the 1980's the experiment has been refuted.



In 1998, National Geographic ran an article entitled, "The Rise of Life on Earth," March 1998, p. 68. I will quote from that article.



"Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.



That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup."


So it would seem that the Miller experiment while proving that amino acids could come from a primordial soup, the basis of his premise is faulty because it does not match the actual conditions of what existed on Earth at the time of the so-called origin.



This is just a single example of the problems with the Miller experiment. There are a whole list of others, however, this one directly challenges the basic premise of how life began on earth, that Miller hoped to have proved. By refuting this premise, all other premises based on this experiment no longer matter to the argument.



dmk




No doubt Millers experiments can be faulted, but however that is not reason enough to discount the possibility of life arising from a process similar to the one presented by him.



The point here is that considering the fact that Miller created the building blocks of life under controlled circumstances in a LAB indicates that life CAN be created by a confluence of events rather than a supernatural being "breathing" life into clay figures.



That is essentially the concept of creative evolution. God created man by making the laws of the universe such that under the right circumstances life would arise seemingly spontaneously from inanimate matter.



Creative evolution does not discount god's role of creating man. It merely brings the PROCESS out of the realm of the "magical" and "miraculous" into the realm of science and natural laws.



One of the main reasons organized religion is so against this is because it makes religion UNDERSTANDABLE and RATIONAL. That reduces their importance because suddenly man will be able to understand the miraculous. And if man feels he can understand the miraculous ( without depreciating the miracle) then what need will he have of mullahs, priests, reverends, pundits, swamis, monks and every other salvation peddler that makes his living by convincing people that the only path to god is trough him or his religious organization/bureaucracy.



Contrary to what most organized religions claim, they actually play more on people' superstitions and fear of the unknown than on their ability to provide answers to life's miracles.



Personally i feel more satisfied and AWED by the fact that god created a universe so complex that life can arise at a molecular level through increibly complex ( and still not fully understood) processes. It makes more sense and it makes god more than just a magician. It shows the incredible scale of god's miracle. I mean the primordial soup theory means that he organized the WHOLE UNIVERSE in such a way that life could be created. That is INFINITELY MORE IMPRESSIVE than the"abracradabra" crap the salvation peddlers would have you believe.
 
Mar 2007
1,352
0
[CLASSIFIED]
#20
I learned that in the 7 days that god created the earth was the time that evolution took place. The first seven days was when the dinosaurs walked the earth, plants and mamals created, then humans. This why the bible only gives history on the past 5,200 years (roughly).
 

Similar Discussions