Evolution and Psychology

[MoNiCa4316]

I'm taking a psychology course about the perception of music...I thought it would be about MUSIC lol but they found a way to sneak evolution in. Here's a part of a journal article I have to read for class called "is music an evolutionary adaptation?"

"Evolution is often thought of in purely physiological rather than psychological terms. It is not simply that evolution has shaped immune systems, digestive tracts, and knee caps. Evolution has also shaped our attitudes, dispositions, emotions, perceptions, and cognitive functions. Some of our deepest convictions can be traced to plausible evolutionary origins: we love life, we fear death, and we nurture our children because these dispositions better ensure the propagation of our species". (David Huron)

Next, they'll be saying that love, humility, and faith also evolved. Oh..wait..they are already saying that.



I'm a creationist... I don't believe in evolution.. but I can tolerate biologists talking about the evolution of our physical characteristics... however this is a little too much. Almost all of my psychology profs talk about evolution of our emotional and cognitive traits, even those that we as Christians usually attribute to the spirit...such as consciousness and altruism and love. They are assuming these things are genetic.

I wish I could drop this course now LOL but I can't.

But..what do you all think?

 

[theIdi0t]

Almost all of my psychology profs talk about evolution of our emotional and cognitive traits, even those that we as Christians usually attribute to the spirit...such as consciousness and altruism and love. They are assuming these things are genetic.

I'm just curious, but would you claim that other animals nurture their children because of their "spirit" as well?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I'm just curious, but would you claim that other animals nurture their children because of their "spirit" as well?

No, but there are different motives for doing different things. For example...people may nurture children for the same reason a cat nurtures her kittens. But a cat would not give her life for another cat down the block a human however would, and the Bible teaches us that that's the highest type of love. My problem is when scientists start saying that things like that evolved...things that most Christians consider spiritual or at least related to the spirit.

Evolutionary psychology is mostly atheistic.

 

[chaoschristian]

But..what do you all think?

I'm thinking I'm wondering where scriptures teach that our consciousness and emotions come from the Holy Spirit.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I'm thinking I'm wondering where scriptures teach that our consciousness and emotions come from the Holy Spirit.

I don't mean the Holy Spirit, but our spirits.
Evolutionary psychology seems to assume that we're completely physical beings, which is untrue.

 

[chaoschristian]

Altruism in animals.

It's a good enough place to start.

 

[chaoschristian]

I don't mean the Holy Spirit, but our spirits.
Evolutionary psychology seems to assume that we're completely physical beings, which is untrue.

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding.

What you talking about is along the lines of monism/dualism/tri-ism (sp?).

If I recall correctly I believe the early Hebrews were monists. They didn't see a seperation between body, mind and spirit. I think that was a much later, Hellenistic concept. But there are others here are much better schooled in that area and I defer to them.

 

[theIdi0t]

No, but there are different motives for doing different things. For example...people may nurture children for the same reason a cat nurtures her kittens. But a cat would not give her life for another cat down the block

Actually, this is not true:

"Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days."

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding.

What you talking about is along the lines of monism/dualism/tri-ism (sp?).

If I recall correctly I believe the early Hebrews were monists. They didn't see a seperation between body, mind and spirit. I think that was a much later, Hellenistic concept. But there are others here are much better schooled in that area and I defer to them.

Well...if we're only physical, then how can we have life after death?
I don't pretend to understand the relation between the body, soul, and spirit, and I would agree with the people who say that all three make up a complete human being and are related/connected. However, the assumption that everything evolved is an assumption that everything is coded for by our DNA. Which frankly I find ridiculous.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Altruism in animals.

It's a good enough place to start.

Actually, this is not true:

"Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days."

lol I know you could come up with lots of examples about animals. But you can't deny that there's a difference between animals and humans, and this difference is important for Christian theology. That is what I was trying to show. And Christians have always believed this. Of course since animals were also created by God they would be able to demonstrate goodness maybe even love. But only humans were made in His image and for us these characteristics have a moral significance. If an animal kills another animal, it's not a sin and they don't go to hell for it, and if they save another animal's life it does not affect their spiritual state.

Probably the psychologists would say that our morality evolved too LOL.. see what I mean?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm taking a psychology course about the perception of music...I thought it would be about MUSIC lol but they found a way to sneak evolution in. Here's a part of a journal article I have to read for class called "is music an evolutionary adaptation?"



Next, they'll be saying that love, humility, and faith also evolved. Oh..wait..they are already saying that.



I'm a creationist... I don't believe in evolution.. but I can tolerate biologists talking about the evolution of our physical characteristics... however this is a little too much. Almost all of my psychology profs talk about evolution of our emotional and cognitive traits, even those that we as Christians usually attribute to the spirit...such as consciousness and altruism and love. They are assuming these things are genetic.

I wish I could drop this course now LOL but I can't.

But..what do you all think?

You may focus on The FACTS that are normally presented by experimental data.

Psychology is trying to provide some explanations to some observed features. And then use the model to predict future behaviors. As a result, the variation are limited to a few parameters and the considerations are not complete in most cases. If allowed, you may present your own explanations. However, just saying God creates is not enough for secular study.

And, you may want to be careful on those "survey results". Those results are nearly always biased and arguable. We all know if one changed the wording of a question, the answer could be different.

 

[Melethiel]

I'd just keep in mind that evolutionary psychology is a relatively new field, and largely hypothetical. When I took Psych last semester, my own professor made the point that ev. psych is not as empirical as the other branches, and she personally emphasized it very little.

 

[shernren]

Most of the evidence for our evolutionary pathway as humans comes from either the fossil record or from genetics; in both cases the evidence seems rock-solid to me, even if we are unclear in a few details here and there. But fossils don't tell us much (if anything) about psychology, neither have we identified a gene for the spirit.

The way I tend to see it is that if scientists do manage to elucidate the entire evolutionary origins of our psychology, including our propensity to know God, that will only prove that God did it all through natural means. When God sustains our everyday existence, He doesn't do so with a continual stream of miracles; every molecule of oxygen entering our lungs is scientifically accountable for, if you get what I mean. Our continued existence is explicable by science, and yet we attribute it to God; why should our origins be any different?

 

[Mallon]

The way I tend to see it is that if scientists do manage to elucidate the entire evolutionary origins of our psychology, including our propensity to know God, that will only prove that God did it all through natural means. When God sustains our everyday existence, He doesn't do so with a continual stream of miracles; every molecule of oxygen entering our lungs is scientifically accountable for, if you get what I mean. Our continued existence is explicable by science, and yet we attribute it to God; why should our origins be any different?

Indeed. Regardless of how our emotions came into being -- whether God poofed them into existence or whether He brought them about via evolution -- the answer to that question still fails to address the flip side of the coin, which is, "Why do we feel emotion?" In answer to that, I believe a Polkinghorne quote is in order:

Why is the kettle boiling? Answer#1: The kettle is boiling because the burning gas heats the water. True. Answer#2: The kettle is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea and would you like to have a cup with me? True.

There is no conflict between those two answers; they are in fact complementary. In an exactly similar way I don't have to choose between science and religion. "The universe sprang into being about fifteen billion years ago through the fiery explosion of the big bang." That is true, but it does not preclude my also saying, "The universe came into being and remains in being because of the Word of a Creator whose mind and purpose are behind all of the scientific truths that we perceive."

With this lesson in mind, we need not fear what science might uncover.

 

[stumpjumper]

Well...if we're only physical, then how can we have life after death?
I don't pretend to understand the relation between the body, soul, and spirit, and I would agree with the people who say that all three make up a complete human being and are related/connected.

Well, real dualism would not say that.

Real dualism, which has largely been disproved scientifically, is kinda like a ghost in the machine belief.

Ever seen Freaky Friday where the mom and daughter change places? That's dualism with a mind/soul completely unrelated to the body.

Christianity has generally considered that type of dualism heretical and it's really a Greek concept.

I would say that the Jews were monistic with a bit of property dualism but not ontological dualism. I would say a weak version of panpsychism is a plausible way to explain the existence or emergence of a soul/spirit within matter.

Everything is conscious to varying degrees because God's spirit is present within creation in varying ways...

 

[gluadys]

I would say that the Jews were monistic with a bit of property dualism but not ontological dualism. I would say a weak version of panpsychism is a plausible way to explain the existence or emergence of a soul/spirit within matter.

Everything is conscious to varying degrees because God's spirit is present within creation in varying ways...

This sounds a bit like Teilhard de Chardin's concept that all material existence, right down to the sub-atomic level, is organized in conjunction with a spiritual core or "inner being".

More complex organizations of matter, such as living organisms have a more complex inner being that allows for some level of sentience.

And in humans we get self-awareness--what we sometimes call a "soul".

But it is not as if the exoteric material being and the inner spiritual being are separable. They are aspects of a single existing entity, viewed from different vantage points.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, real dualism would not say that.

Real dualism, which has largely been disproved scientifically, is kinda like a ghost in the machine belief.

Could you point to me more information on that? How did science disprove Dualism?

 

[stumpjumper]

This sounds a bit like Teilhard de Chardin's concept that all material existence, right down to the sub-atomic level, is organized in conjunction with a spiritual core or "inner being".

More complex organizations of matter, such as living organisms have a more complex inner being that allows for some level of sentience.

And in humans we get self-awareness--what we sometimes call a "soul".

But it is not as if the exoteric material being and the inner spiritual being are separable. They are aspects of a single existing entity, viewed from different vantage points.

I agree.

Could you point to me more information on that? How did science disprove Dualism?

Well, not so much "disproven" but certainly shown to be untenable.

Dualism has philosophical as well scientific origins. You find dualism in some form straight through from Plato and his world of Ideals or Ideas to a Descartes or "Cartesian" version.

In Christian theology, Augustine's "ascension of the soul" is heavily dualistic as well. Though, in all actuality, most outright dualism was considered unorthodox and as Christians we believe in a "bodily resurrection" not a ghost in a machine that ascends to some wholly spiritual realm at death.

How has science shown this dualism or "ghost in the machine" untenable? Look at neuroscience and the slew of biological factors that affect our self, our personality, our desires, and just about what it means to be us. It is proven that altering brain chemistry alters our personality and our emotions as the millions of Americans on anti-depressants can attest to

All in all, I think it just shows that matter is an integral part of what we are and a necessary part of creation. There is a reason that orthodox Christianity declared heretical gnostic dualism that considered matter evil and the creation of a demiurge.

Body, soul, and spirit all exist but they exist in harmony and are dependent upon each other in many ways and, of course, upon God as the ground of being and spirit that is the source of all.

 

[PaladinValer]

Biological evolution isn't the same as psychological evolution (or at least that is my understanding).

If the above is true, aren't you comparing apples to oranges?

 

[gluadys]

Biological evolution isn't the same as psychological evolution (or at least that is my understanding).

If the above is true, aren't you comparing apples to oranges?

Insofar as the mind is a manifestation of brain activity, it may be a product of biological evolution.

Some hold that all mental/spiritual traits and activities are simply phenomena produced by neural synapses. One sees this especially in strict determinists like Daniel Dennett.