Showing posts with label darwinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label darwinism. Show all posts

Sunday, 6 January 2013

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH! For the good of your religion, think less!


Evolution is ungoodthinkful


Thoughtcrime Prevention in England
More on the war between religion and science, with a report on a proposed debate on evolution at South Kensington Madrassa (formerly known as Imperial College) which had to be cancelled due to intimidation by followers of The Religion of Peace™.    

Evolution is such a threat to their politicised religion that they can't tolerate even hearing it debated. In order to censor their own thought processes, they need to shut down any external temptations towards heretical thoughtcrime. Darwinism especially is doubleplusungood.

Ministers of Truth
The reason that evolution is such a major threat to the RoP is that jihadists believe the Koran is the literal word of God.   Any major error in the Koran would reveal it to be a hoax, and everything built upon it to be founded on a 1400-year-old confidence trick.   So it's all or nothing, there's no scope for flexibility or compromise. The Koran can't just be true in some parts and fictitious in others. Either the Koran is divinely authored, or the whole thing is a fraud.

Saving spirituality from scientism
As attitudes harden and polarize in the war of religion against science, perhaps only the rational approach of Buddhism can find a middle way between the rock of irrefutable scientific fact, and the hard place of totalitarian religious dogma.

The full story is here




Related articles

Buddhism and Science

Creationism Crisis for Christianity = Opportunity for Buddhism

Evolution, Emptiness and Delusions of the Darwinian Mind




---

---
 

 


Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Dukkha, Dawkins, Darwinism and the Selfish Gene


ONE of the consequences of sentient biological existence is the experience dukkha. Dukkha is sometimes translated as suffering, but in actual fact encompasses all senses of unsatisfactoriness, even including pleasure (which evolution has contrived will always be a transient sensation - lest it detract too much from the grim business of survival).

In its most manifest form dukkha includes severe suffering such as that of the animal caught in a trap which will gnaw through its own limb in order to attempt to gain some form of temporary survival, perhaps to return to its young. At the other end of the scale is the subtle dissatisfaction of the billionaire who has everything , and then discovers that his business rival has a slightly larger yacht.

Dukkha ensures you can never have enough, you've always got to have more.

Any sentient being living in an evolved and evolving biosphere will inevitably experience dukkha. Dukkha is a quale (subjective experience), an appearance to the mind of the habits of millions of years evolution , of attempting to get the competitive edge, of never being satisfied with second place, of perpetual restlessness.

Darwinism shows that evolution is a game that the individual cannot win. His genes drive him to compete and propagate, but he is not propagating himself, he is propagating his selfish genes. We spend our lives from birth to death acquiring nutrients to grow and ensure our survival. Nowadays many of us acquire sufficient nutrients to actually reduce our chances of survival, but instincts driven by genes developed during millions of years of selection by famine don't disappear in a generation or two of plenty.

We acquire every material need and even then we're not satisfied. Our instincts drive us to acquire everything else we can lay our hands on. Things may be no use to us, but our deep instincts tell us that by holding them ourselves we are depriving our competitors (everybody but our immediate kin) of them. The sociobiological roots of greed and attachment to possessions go deep into our evolutionary past.

Evolutionary Psychology
Getting into the state of being satisfied sets the instinctive alarm bells ringing. If you think you can drop out of the evolutionary race then all the habituation of hundreds of millions of years of evolution will tell you not to.

Our genes drive us along paths of action which appear to minimise suffering, but in many cases increase it. Greed and acquisitiveness are natural reactions designed to increase the survival of our genes, and decrease the chances of our competitors. After a certain point, the more you've got the more you've got to lose, (even if it is just losing face) and so the more you've got to worry about losing.

These instinctive strivings and attachments for things which are ultimately only going to cause us worry and unhappiness are known in Buddhist philosophy as innate delusions (as distinct from intellectually formed delusions such as memes). The innate delusions are considerably more difficult to overcome than intellectually formed delusions, however it is one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism that they can eventually be brought into the light of day and removed. To quote Richard Dawkins 'We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against out creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.' [Dawkins 1989]

The Buddhist technique of rebellion against the selfish replicators, at any rate in the form of innate delusions, is to reduce the power of the forces which drive us by recognising them for what they are. This is traditionally performed by a mixture of analytical thought and meditation, and involves the recognition of four truths of biological existence:

(1) The first step is to recognise the inevitability of dukkha - the sense of unsatisfactoriness and the certainty of ultimate loss of everything, which haunts all sentient beings even in the absence of manifest suffering.

(2) The second is to recognise the origins of these futile strivings in our biologically conditioned evolutionary history. If we want to stop being the puppets of our genes and memes we need to clearly understand why we're attached to these particular strings.

(3) The third step is to realise that it needn't be like this. This is perhaps the most difficult one for a reductionist materialist. It involves realising that the mind is non-physical and that it can escape from the eternal evolutionary treadmill.

(4) The fourth step is adopting a liberating psychological technology that stabilises the mind and protects it against uncontrolled attachment to further striving, suffering, biological rebirths.

Original Sin
Note that the Buddhist concept of innate delusions is totally different to that of 'original sin' found in some other belief systems. Innate delusions and their imprints are seen as an inevitable consequence of where our minds have been over millions of years of evolution. There is no actual 'blame' or 'guilt' to them, though of course the practitioner strives to understand them in order to overcome them. The concept of Original Sin is theological rather than scientific in origin, and derives from Eve's sin of eating the apple being passed down through all subsequent generations.


REF
Dawkins 1989 ' The Selfish Gene' p201, Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-286092-5

- Sean Robsville



RELATED ARTICLES

Rational Buddhism

Buddhism versus Materialism

Evolution is no threat to Buddhism

Accepting our Evolutionary History does not Mean Rejecting our Spirituality

Buddhism, Rationalism and Empiricism

Qualia - Subjective Experience


---


---

Saturday, 10 October 2009

Evolution is no Threat to Buddhism

In the western world there are two opposing views of the origins of the species - theological (creationism) and scientific (evolution).

Creationism
Creationists believe that species are unchanging and derive their forms by reference to a divine blueprint. Theology has long been dominated by the ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato, who taught that the species were invariant, deriving their characteristics from reference to 'essences' or 'ideal forms' which were fixed, eternal and inherently existent. To a Creationist a rose is a rose is a rose, and would smell as sweet by any other name. There is no way a rose bush could fade into a strawberry plant, or a cherry tree, or a tangle of brambles, or a mountain ash, or a raspberry cane, or a hawthorn bush, or an apple tree. These are all totally distinct and immediately recognisable species - separate types of plant with nothing in between. Theologians base their time reckoning on the chronology of the Bible which states that the world all its species were created in six days of a single week around 4004 BC .

Evolution
Evolutionists believe that species arose by gradual change from simpler forms. Strawberry plants, cherry trees, blackberries, raspberries, hawthorns and apples all have a family likeness because they all arose from a common ancestor, which resembled a primitive rose. Hence botanists call this plant family the Rosaceae.

Similarly, all primates (including humans and apes) have a common ancestor. Going back further, all species of mammals diverged from a common ancestor, and so on into the dim and distant past until we reach one common ancestor of all lifeforms, which originated the DNA coding which is universal for all plants, animals, fungi and bacteria on earth.

Consequently, to evolutionists the biological species concept does not reflect any underlying reality. A species is purely a snapshot of an interbreeding population of organisms at a particular epoch in time, and as time progresses the characteristics of that population will gradually change in response to selective pressures.

Buddhism
Buddhist philosophy is evolutionary and thus agrees with the scientists rather than the theologians. Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading . Buddhist philosophers consequently rejected the Platonic idea of production from 'ideal forms' as being the fallacy of 'production from inherently existent other'. According to most schools of Buddhism there is nothing whatsoever that is inherently or independently existent.

The two main creationist objections to evolution are:
1 Disagreement with Genesis
2 Blurring of the theological distinction between human and animal

Neither of these pose any threat to Buddhist philosophy. The first objection is based on the need to maintain the truth of a particular creation story in order to preserve the underlying basis for all Biblical truth. This is not a worry to Buddhists because there is no corresponding Buddhist creation myth, and Buddhist philosophers have always accepted that the universe is many hundreds of millions of years old.

The second theological objection is that evolution states that there is a continuum between ape and man, ie human and animal.(A favourite anti-evolutionary slogan is 'Don't let them make a Monkey of You!). This is not a problem for Buddhists, who believe that both humans and animals possess sentient minds which survive death.  However, it is a major problem for theologians. The church has always taught that only humans have immortal souls, whereas animals are automata whose minds cease at death. Humans and animals were created separatedly and hence are totally different types of being. But if there was a gradual transition between animal and man, as the evolutionists claim, then such theological beliefs fall apart.

The theologians are left with three alternative unpalatable viewpoints:

- Both humans and animals are and always have been automata (the materialist's position).
- Both humans and animals are sentient beings whose minds survive death (the Buddhist position)
- At some arbitrary date in the past the apemen were suddenly equipped with souls.

The undermining of the doctrine of the distinction of human from animals is probably an even greater threat to the theological viewpoint than doubt about the literal truth of Genesis, and does much to explain why theologians of any persuasion have never been able to come to terms with what Daniel C. Dennett [REF 1] has described as Darwins's Dangerous Idea.

Evolution and dukkha
No matter what philosophical knots the theologians may be forced to unravel, from the Buddhist viewpoint the theory of evolution has considerable explanatory power, in particular demonstrating why dukkha (the sensation of unsatisfactoriness) is a pervasive experience of all sentient beings throughout the evolved biosphere.
- Sean Robsville



[REF1] Daniel C. Dennett, 1995; Darwin's Dangerous Idea, publ Penguin, ISBN 0-14-016734-X