If Evolution is true what is purpose of life?

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

So why was it important to note their involvement with evolutionary theory? That seems fairly prejudicial.

It's an odd prejudice since I want to believe in the Theory of Evolution. I already have my faith. I already have my philosophy. What I do not have have, however, is a well rounded understanding of evolution and the philosophies associated with it.

Randall, do you understand that I'm just asking questions? I've already said that I'd like to see this in contrast to other philosophies and religions.

Repeat: ...in contrast to other philosophies and religions.

 

[TrueAuthority]

You shouldnt rely on science/evolution or whatnot to give/not give you a purpose in life..

 

[IchbinBerliner]

The purpose of life is to live. Thats it. Just live how you want to live.

 

[Randall McNally]

It's an odd prejudice since I want to believe in the Theory of Evolution. I already have my faith. I already have my philosophy. What I do not have have, however, is a well rounded understanding of evolution and the philosophies associated with it.

Randall, do you understand that I'm just asking questions? I've already said that I'd like to see this in contrast to other philosophies and religions.

Repeat: ...in contrast to other philosophies and religions.

Associating particular philosophies with evolution is precisely the problem.

Science is science is science no matter the discipline. All scientific theories are derived from the same methodology and subject to the same limitations. Thus, any philosophical issues apply to science as a whole.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

Associating particular philosophies with evolution is precisely the problem.

Why is this such a problem? Many people are doing it. As I'm entering into this field, I'm hearing all kinds of ideas behind it -- many claims which I'm testing to see if they're substantiated.

Dude, I'm reading about stuff now. It's like if I don't automatically agree with it, I'm either prejudiced, stupid, or evil (or maybe all three).

I don't know what else to say. I'm looking into it.

Science is science is science no matter the discipline.

Science is dicovery and I'm discovering new fields of science again.

I've pretty much read about astrophysics and quantum mechanics most of the last 15-17 years or so. I don't know much about evolution and I'm learning about it now.

All scientific theories are derived from the same methodology and subject to the same limitations. Thus, any philosophical issues apply to science as a whole.

Could you explain this further? I don't get what you mean.

 

[aeroz19]

I am not one to state facts proving creationism or evolution but I started to think about it on my level.

If evolution is true then I am here by chance and not made for any specific reason besides mabye to contiue my species. If it is true then I should be fearful of death beceause it is the end but then again I should careless because this life doesnt mean anything anyway.

It is quite a step down to really consider that maybe we weren't specially created by God.

But even if we weren't, that doesn't mean that God doesn't have a plan and purpose for our existance. My arising suspicion is that His plan is a lot deeper and meaningful if evolution is true.

Why did God take so long to have us show up on the scene? What is He planning for our futures?

I am born put into school and then I am told if I want a decent living then I must go to college so that I can work at a good job. After all my long hours of hard work and studying I eventually die with all the pointless things that I did but in the end had no meaning.

That is so untrue. You would still go to school, work, and die anyway, whether or not you were specially created.

If I was an evolution scientiest and spent all my time trying to prove evolution then I would be trying to let others know that there is no reason for them to be here and that there life means nothing its just an accident or by chance.

A chance that God planned, perhaps? A chance that God guided, maybe? A chance that was bound to happen according to God's purpose and plan?

Honestly, I used to think just as you did, before I even understood natural selection. But now that I have deeply considered the ramifications of evolution being true, I don't believe that life would be meaningless and void.

Although salmon have a big purpose in the ecosystem etc.. would they do this if they could understand what they were doing? They migrate back up stream
to where they were born and reproduce and then eventially die. Not much of a life if you ask me.

If evolution is true why do we care about others. Why do we spend so much money through government etc.. to help people when in the end they really dont mean anything except hurt the enviroment etc...

Because we all find meaning. To an atheist, there is no pre-defined meaning or purpose for our existance. To an IDer or a YECist, life has ultimate meaning and purpose. You don't have to give that up if you're an evolutionist. Someone here has a sig that says we should think of evolution as just another method that God works by.

I'm not saying I believe in evolution, just that I have looked into it quite a bit and from what I can tell, it's probably true. It would take actually learning more Biology for me to be sure though--something I don't have time to do right now.

Why should I care about the people around me since we are here by chance and I really should only care about myself but then why do I even care about myself since it doesnt mean anything?

Because you can see that they have feelings and souls and are capable of thought and reason.

Because you have those things too.

With Christianity atleast I have hope for what happens to me after death. I can experience great love and happiness helping others(yes even if you believe evolutionists can experience this) and understand that I was created for a specific purpose and by a God that greatly loves me. My life has great meaning. I dont have to fear what happens to me when I die.

This is like what I was saying in one of my threads. People cling to certain beliefs for emotional reasons, even against all reason and evidence. This appears to be what you're doing. You are concerned that if evolution is true, maybe you won't go to Heaven when you die--that maybe there isn't even a God.

But none of this is true in the least bit. It just means that the way the first century Christians thought we all got here and how God created, was all wrong.

We are faced in this era with finding out how it all really happened.

I don't doubt for one minute that we have souls, that there is a God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that I am going to Heaven when I die.

What I do not know is at what point in history we got souls, since there was no literal Adam and Eve.

I believe with all my heart that God is real

As do I.

but lets say for some reason none of it is real then I die just like the rest of the world and thats it.

That would be a human tragedy, the worst of all tragedies. It would not even compare to the humanitarian crises faced in wars, or the ones going on in third world countries.

But thankfully it isn't true.

Besides what is the purpose of life as an evolutionist? How have all the religions come along doesnt that show that something must have happened in the past or were they all just trying to figure out why they were here and that sounded the best? from an evolutionist understanding??

Thanks

IMO, religions arose out of the inner human sense of spirituality. We sense and have sensed that we have souls. We sense and have sensed that there is a spiritual realm (though the belief in the supernatural also arose to explain that which was not understood). Our level of consciousness only goes just so deep, barely deep enough to sense that which is under our human shells--the deepest part of us.

But that is how religions got there today. Becuase people of all tribes and nationalities tried to explain their spiritual experiences in the way that they understood them.

Of course, we as Christians believe that the experiences of those who were believers in Christ had more relevant and special experiences, and were more directly guided by God in their lives. They also were able to partake of salvation.

 

[Valhalla]

The only meaning to life, is the meaning we attribute to it.

 

[Randall McNally]

Why is this such a problem? Many people are doing it. As I'm entering into this field, I'm hearing all kinds of ideas behind it -- many claims which I'm testing to see if they're substantiated.

Dude, I'm reading about stuff now. It's like if I don't automatically agree with it, I'm either prejudiced, stupid, or evil (or maybe all three).

I don't know what else to say. I'm looking into it.

Well, philosophies are systems of thought based on logical reasoning. Evolution, however, is an empirical theory. A philosophy might incorporate evolution, but it can never be prescribed or entailed by it.

Science is dicovery and I'm discovering new fields of science again.

My sincerest wishes that you discover them all.

I've pretty much read about astrophysics and quantum mechanics most of the last 15-17 years or so. I don't know much about evolution and I'm learning about it now.

There is no shortage of evolution enthusiasts here who will gladly recommend more reading material than you can probably cover in a decade.

Could you explain this further? I don't get what you mean.

There is philosophy of science, insofar as science is a method of obtaining knowledge. There are not, however, philosophies of biology, cosmology, meteorology, much less evolution, gravity, cell theory. That's because the latter items all are produced by the same method, and it is that general method which is under philosophical scrutiny.

The theory of evolution incurs no more additional philosophical baggage than does plate tectonic theory.

 

[GeigerTheGreat]

[ If evolution is true why do we care about others. Why do we spend so much money through government etc.. to help people when in the end they really dont mean anything except hurt the enviroment etc... Why should I care about the people around me since we are here by chance and I really should only care about myself but then why do I even care about myself since it doesnt mean anything?



[/QUOTE]
If christianity is true, then is your only reason to help others a desire for reward in the next life? that seems pretty selfish to me.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

What I do not know is at what point in history we got souls, since there was no literal Adam and Eve.

This is a point of contention for many fellow Christians I've spoken with.

They often note that if Adam and Eve weren't literal, then there could be no literal original sin that transmitted directly from one set of parent to all their anscestors. They then say that if there were no original sin, then there could possibly be no need for Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In other words, they claim that it undermines the basis of what Christ came on earth to do.

I have to confess that this is one of the thoughts that I've pondered over a lot recently. From a Catholic perspective, the only two dogmatic statements that I've been able to find concerning creation is that a) Adam and Eve were real and that b) everything was made out of nothing.

Havind said this though, this thought doesn't necessarilly apply to Catholics only. Using a symbolic representation of the Scriptural creation account seems to work only in so far as the science explains it. But when the concept of the human soul enters the equation, the argument for Christ's sacrifice seems to break down.

For example, if death came to man because of sin, yet there was 4 billion years of death prior to man's emergence onto the earth, then isn't man already born into death?

And, if one sees this death as symbolic or spiritual death, yet there were many humans who were alive at that point, wouldn't there be many who did not experience a spritual death at all?

The other thought that I have concerning the issue of death if the point of why did God spend 4 billion years bringing man here in the first place? It seems to be a lot of work to create something perfect only to have it go puff within a single generation (or single long term era of thousands of years). The "perfection" attained doesn't seem to be far removed from the deadly environment it emerged from.

For me, this is one of my sticking points: It seems that if God is all-knowing, then he wouldn't need to experiment using evolution (the biological equivalent of the scientic method) to get it right the first time.

I confess that this is a religious concept more than a science concept -- yet the two seem to be overlapping and possibly saying two very different things.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

[Tomk80]

This is a point of contention for many fellow Christians I've spoken with.

They often note that if Adam and Eve weren't literal, then there could be no literal original sin that transmitted directly from one set of parent to all their anscestors. They then say that if there were no original sin, then there could possibly be no need for Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In other words, they claim that it undermines the basis of what Christ came on earth to do.

I have to confess that this is one of the thoughts that I've pondered over a lot recently. From a Catholic perspective, the only two dogmatic statements that I've been able to find concerning creation is that a) Adam and Eve were real and that b) everything was made out of nothing.

Havind said this though, this thought doesn't necessarilly apply to Catholics only. Using a symbolic representation of the Scriptural creation account seems to work only in so far as the science explains it. But when the concept of the human soul enters the equation, the argument for Christ's sacrifice seems to break down.

For example, if death came to man because of sin, yet there was 4 billion years of death prior to man's emergence onto the earth, then isn't man already born into death?

And, if one sees this death as symbolic or spiritual death, yet there were many humans who were alive at that point, wouldn't there be many who did not experience a spritual death at all?

The other thought that I have concerning the issue of death if the point of why did God spend 4 billion years bringing man here in the first place? It seems to be a lot of work to create something perfect only to have it go puff within a single generation (or single long term era of thousands of years). The "perfection" attained doesn't seem to be far removed from the deadly environment it emerged from.

For me, this is one of my sticking points: It seems that if God is all-knowing, then he wouldn't need to experiment using evolution (the biological equivalent of the scientic method) to get it right the first time.

I confess that this is a religious concept more than a science concept -- yet the two seem to be overlapping and possibly saying two very different things.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

But the same question applies to christian theology. If God is all-knowing, why wait 2000 years (or longer) before sending a saviour. Why not bring him around immediately in the beginning, since God allready knew man would mess up.
And God using evolution as a mechanism is not necessarily experimentation. That makes it seem that God wouldn't know the outcome, which is not necessarily true.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why is this such a problem? Many people are doing it. As I'm entering into this field, I'm hearing all kinds of ideas behind it -- many claims which I'm testing to see if they're substantiated.

listen to the facts, not the philosophies. "Hitler was an evolutionist" is such a tired and irrelevent cliche that serves no purpose except to cloud the facts.

If Hitler beleived in evolution, does that make evolution false?
If Hitler believed that 2+2=4, does that make mathematics false?

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

Well, philosophies are systems of thought based on logical reasoning. Evolution, however, is an empirical theory. A philosophy might incorporate evolution, but it can never be prescribed or entailed by it.

And yet I'm consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method.

My sincerest wishes that you discover them all.

Thank. I do appreciate this.

There is no shortage of evolution enthusiasts here who will gladly recommend more reading material than you can probably cover in a decade.

I realize that. Yet everytime I ask a simple question concerning the influence of evolutionary thinking, I notice a small dogpile -- with me on the bottom.

There is philosophy of science, insofar as science is a method of obtaining knowledge. There are not, however, philosophies of biology, cosmology, meteorology, much less evolution, gravity, cell theory. That's because the latter items all are produced by the same method, and it is that general method which is under philosophical scrutiny.

And I dont have a problem using the scientific method to obtain knowledge. It works excellently. I've said this many times. My concern is when the scientific method is in itself seen as the answer, and our origins of life are modelled after it -- well before the scientifc method itslef is used to verify it.

The theory of evolution incurs no more additional philosophical baggage than does plate tectonic theory.

The theory of evolution bears a striking resemblance to the scientific method itself. Or, as I've said above, I'm consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method. I don't see this pattern within cosmology, meteorology, or gravity (I don't know much about cell theory).

Here, let me explain my observation:

The Scientific Method in a Nutshell:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Now, hold up the mirror and what do you see?

The Theory of Evolution in a Nutshell:

1. Reproduction and environment of a species or group of species.

2. Usage of natural selection to produce the species. In evolution, the natural selection often takes the form of an environment or mutation.

3. Usage of natural selection to produce the existence of other species, or to produce serindipitously the environment of newer reproductions.

4. Isolation of environental factors involved in the reproduction of several independent species and isolated speciations.

I'm consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method. In other words, the theory of evolution seems to be a mirror image of the scientific method broadcast over the origins of species.

More to the point, it seems like life is just one big experiment -- which is exactly how a scientifically minded person might veiw the origins of all species on earth.

It's just my observation. It doesn't mean that I think the theory of evolution is wrong. However, any claims of the theory being completely non-biased are very suspect in my opinion. And the fact that it has been used (just like religion, philosophy, etc.) seems to really beg the question of just how biased it can be.

This is where I'm starting my inquiry from. I think this is a fair starting point.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

listen to the facts, not the philosophies. "Hitler was an evolutionist" is such a tired and irrelevent cliche that serves no purpose except to cloud the facts.

But I didn't say "Hitler was an evolutionist". As I've known from the get go, Hitler was Catholic. I didn't say "evolutionists were evil."

Some people that believe in evolution are athiests.
Some people that believe in evolution are Christians.
Some people that believe in evolution are buddhists.
Some people that believe in evolution are agnostic.

If Hitler beleived in evolution, does that make evolution false?

But I didn't ask if Hitler beleiving in evolution proved evolution was false. His beliefs on evolution in no way validate whether the theory is proven correct scientifically or not. What I was concerned about was the influences that the philosophies associated with evolution might result in.

I've made this clear from the beginning.

If Hitler believed that 2+2=4, does that make mathematics false?

Not that I can see. But, again, I'm not interested in proving mathematics false. Within the context of the above thoughts expressed, I'm more interested in how the introduction of mathematics would influence society.

See this thread here for more of my thoughts...

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

But the same question applies to christian theology. If God is all-knowing, why wait 2000 years (or longer) before sending a saviour. Why not bring him around immediately in the beginning, since God allready knew man would mess up.

I defintely agree here. There are many thoughts concerning this and I would like to share them sometime. But, I guess what I'm saying is, I already do have answers from a theological perspective for the questions above.

What I don't have, yet, is answers for fully incorporating evolutionary theory in my Christian beliefs so as to be fully considered a Theistic Evolutionist.

And God using evolution as a mechanism is not necessarily experimentation. That makes it seem that God wouldn't know the outcome, which is not necessarily true.

And you might be 100% correct on this. However, at least from what I've observed, the theory of evolution seems to have the stamp of the scientific method all over it.

See this thread

 

[Tomk80]

I defintely agree here. There are many thoughts concerning this and I would like to share them sometime. But, I guess what I'm saying is, I already do have answers from a theological perspective for the questions above.

What I don't have, yet, is answers for fully incorporating evolutionary theory in my Christian beliefs so as to be fully considered a Theistic Evolutionist.



And you might be 100% correct on this. However, at least from what I've observed, the theory of evolution seems to have the stamp of the scientific method all over it.

See this thread

Maybe, I responded to this in your thread. However, even if it has God might have used it, and we will never know whether God was involved or not and whether he might have known the outcome or not. Something might appear completely random and be God's work. Even more so, there really is a God, he will not hold himself to experimentation, since he will have a choice to oblige or not.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But I didn't ask if Hitler beleiving in evolution proved evolution was false. His beliefs on evolution in no way validate whether the theory is proven correct scientifically or not.

THANK YOU!
You have no idea how refreshing it is to hear someone say this...

What I was concerned about was the influences that the philosophies associated with evolution might result in.

I've made this clear from the beginning.

Granted, many people have tried to shoehorn it into their way of thinking, for good or for ill, but evolution itself has no schools of thought intrinsically tied to it.

Not that I can see. But, again, I'm not interested in proving mathematics false. Within the context of the above thoughts expressed, I'm more interested in how the introduction of mathematics would influence society.

Well, certainly, the presentation of new ideas has always resulted in social upheaval. The more we learn, the harder we try to incorporate new ideas into what we already know.

I have to confess (although it should seem obvious by now) that I misunderstood your original question. Too many people ave tried to reject an idea based on perceived moral or philosophical consequences, that I assumed that you were ready to do the same.

 

[Randall McNally]

And yet I'm consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method.

Again, this based on empiricism, not philosophy.

Ultimately, origins are a matter of chemistry and physics rather than biology.

I realize that. Yet everytime I ask a simple question concerning the influence of evolutionary thinking, I notice a small dogpile -- with me on the bottom.

I just don't think the data supports the idea that properly understood evolutionary theory contributes significantly to personal nihilisms or to inhuman eugenics programs.

The examples you gave have been used for years by evolution opponents as an overtly pejorative attack. But they're largely uncritical, cherry-picking data to disguise the fact that Hitler and Stalin had severely warped interpretations of the theory.

And I dont have a problem using the scientific method to obtain knowledge. It works excellently. I've said this many times. My concern is when the scientific method is in itself seen as the answer, and our origins of life are modelled after it -- well before the scientifc method itslef is used to verify it.

It appears that you're subtly conflating the two understandings of "origins." Science tentatively suggests that the well-established heirarchy of organisms may take its origin from simple, self-replicating molecules because that's where the data takes us. Whether there is a non-physical intelligence behind it all is a question science not only leaves unanswered but unasked.

The theory of evolution bears a striking resemblance to the scientific method itself. Or, as I've said above, I'm consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method. I don't see this pattern within cosmology, meteorology, or gravity (I don't know much about cell theory).

Again, "origins" is not the same concept between science and philosophy. The only philosophical discourses on origins that can be countered or supported by science are those that insert themselves into the empirical realm. That's why Young-Earth Creationism can be legitimately countered by science, but deism cannot.

Now, hold up the mirror and what do you see?

I'm not sure I understand.

I'm consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method. In other words, the theory of evolution seems to be a mirror image of the scientific method broadcast over the origins of species.

I think I've covered this sufficiently.

More to the point, it seems like life is just one big experiment -- which is exactly how a scientifically minded person might veiw the origins of all species on earth.

It depends. Scientists, despite popular misconception, are mostly theists or deists. They might consider God an experimenter in His own right. An atheist probably would not, however.

It's just my observation. It doesn't mean that I think the theory of evolution is wrong. However, any claims of the theory being completely non-biased are very suspect in my opinion. And the fact that it has been used (just like religion, philosophy, etc.) seems to really beg the question of just how biased it can be.

This is where I'm starting my inquiry from. I think this is a fair starting point.

What sort of bias are you concerned with here?

 

[aeroz19]

This is a point of contention for many fellow Christians I've spoken with.

They often note that if Adam and Eve weren't literal, then there could be no literal original sin that transmitted directly from one set of parent to all their anscestors. They then say that if there were no original sin, then there could possibly be no need for Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In other words, they claim that it undermines the basis of what Christ came on earth to do.

Like I said, I don't know the answers, as I am still working on this one. But I have a few hypothesis.

Perhaps there is no such thing as a "sin nature." We humans have been sinning ever since we could comprehend what we were doing. There was no "original sin." We were never in a perfect state, and therefore there is no literal "fall of man."

We have always been fallen. We have always been sinning. And therefore we have always needed Christ.

I have to confess that this is one of the thoughts that I've pondered over a lot recently. From a Catholic perspective, the only two dogmatic statements that I've been able to find concerning creation is that a) Adam and Eve were real and that b) everything was made out of nothing.

Havind said this though, this thought doesn't necessarilly apply to Catholics only. Using a symbolic representation of the Scriptural creation account seems to work only in so far as the science explains it. But when the concept of the human soul enters the equation, the argument for Christ's sacrifice seems to break down.

Before Christ, the sins of humanity were in remission, waiting to be forgiven and purged. Christ was needed to purge away those sins.

Just because there was no "original sin" doesn't mean there wasn't sin. There was always sin. There was always a need for Christ.

For example, if death came to man because of sin, yet there was 4 billion years of death prior to man's emergence onto the earth, then isn't man already born into death?

Death did not come because of sin. Death was just always there. Sin was just always there. The two are not linked except in the physical context.

Yes man is born into death.

And, if one sees this death as symbolic or spiritual death, yet there were many humans who were alive at that point, wouldn't there be many who did not experience a spritual death at all?

Because there was always sin, there was always spiritual death.

The other thought that I have concerning the issue of death if the point of why did God spend 4 billion years bringing man here in the first place?

Why would He spend 6 days? 6 seconds? 6 years? 6 million years? 4 billion years?

It seems to be a lot of work to create something perfect only to have it go puff within a single generation (or single long term era of thousands of years). The "perfection" attained doesn't seem to be far removed from the deadly environment it emerged from.

There was never perfection.

For me, this is one of my sticking points: It seems that if God is all-knowing, then he wouldn't need to experiment using evolution (the biological equivalent of the scientic method) to get it right the first time.

Evolution isn't an experiment. I don't know what it would be considered to Him though. I haven't given it much thought.

But this all makes God seem more mysterious, more awesome, more deep in nature, to my mind. It makes me want to know Him more.

As Einstein said, "I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details."

I confess that this is a religious concept more than a science concept -- yet the two seem to be overlapping and possibly saying two very different things.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Yes but here is where Science meets Religion. This is an area I have to explore a lot more. Everything I have said is just my opinion; I really haven't given it that much thought yet.

 

[icebreaker]

Ok take away the meaning of live question towards evolution and lets say the entire world agreed evolution to be unquestionable fact. If this was to happen I would find my life to be without meaning but I wanted to get an answer from an Evolutionists. That is why I used to analogy of the salmon. The Idea of Evolution is very difficult for me to comprehend and live with the idea that I just "exsist" It is easier for me to believe in Jesus than evolution and that is why evolution is hard to believe. And yes maybe this post should have been in the philosophy forum because it is more of an opinionated question