Purpose Of Evolution

[lampofred]

I wonder the same thing. God wants to trick us? God wants to test us? God wants to see how much we love him? God gave us free will and we intentionally choose everything wicked and bad?

I think the great problem of recent history (maybe from around the time of Socrates) is that mind has lost alignment with heart. Mind is in charge of heart instead of heart being in charge of mind. Mind is supposed to be just a tool, like our eyes or ears, but it has become who we are. That's why our instincts are all wrong.

 

[LUH 3417]

I think the great problem of recent history (maybe from around the time of Socrates) is that mind has lost alignment with heart. Mind is in charge of heart instead of heart being in charge of mind. Mind is supposed to be just a tool, like our eyes or ears, but it has become who we are. That's why our instincts are all wrong.

But why did this happen? What is the “teleological” point of all of it?

 

[Thybo]

I wonder the same thing. God wants to trick us? God wants to test us? God wants to see how much we love him? God gave us free will and we intentionally choose everything wicked and bad?

The answers to these questions from a process theologian point of view—again, I'm addressing it from this view because Ray said that he is a fan of process theology; I myself am also careful with religion but I found the process theologian view interesting—would be that "God can't" because he is not omnipotent. To quote Wikipedia (Process theology - Wikipedia):

• God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.
• Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality.
• The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.

The second point, that "reality is made up of events which are experiential in nature" would bring us back to the purpose of evolution.

 

[LUH 3417]

The answers to these questions from a process theologian point of view—again, I'm addressing it from this view because Ray said that he is a fan of process theology; I myself am also careful with religion but I found the process theologian view interesting—would be that "God can't" because he is not omnipotent. To quote Wikipedia (Process theology - Wikipedia):

• God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.[8]
• Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality.
• The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.

The second point, that "reality is made up of events which are experiential in nature" would bring us back to the purpose of evolution.

Would a process theologian see evolution as the process of god coming to know god as god?

 

[LucyL]

What's the point of making it so hard to come back to him? Seems cruel, or at least a bit dumb. I think we know at this point that a good environment can make a person the most compassionate, kind, and wise person in the world. And a bad environment can do the opposite. Why doesn't God just tweak the environment to give us all the most nurturing environment? Everyone would love that.

In other words, everything I do, good or bad, is just a reaction to something outside of me. If the environment is good, I am triggered to do good things. You would think it should be easy to just change the environment if the end goal is our happiness, salvation, whatever you want to call it.

We don't come back to him. He brings us. So-called "free will" is not a Biblical concept. So yeah, God does tweak our internal environment when He draws us with irresistible grace.

 

[Thybo]

Would a process theologian see evolution as the process of god coming to know god as god?

I can only guess since I'm new to process theology. First, according to process theology, God is the soul of the universe but not the universe itself (i.e., panentheism vs pantheism), therefore, I'm not sure if you could say the "process of god." Second, God "getting to know himself" might be part of the process but I think the more general goal might be to mature towards greater structural complexity and greater richness of experience. I would guess that the journey is the reward and that there is no ultimate goal, similar to humans who usually want to grow and mature during their life time.

 

[LUH 3417]

I can only guess since I'm new to process theology. First, according to process theology, God is the soul of the universe but not the universe itself (i.e., panentheism vs pantheism), therefore, I'm not sure if you could say the "process of god." Second, God "getting to know himself" might be part of the process but I think the more general goal might be to mature towards greater structural complexity and greater richness of experience. I would guess that the journey is the reward and that there is no ultimate goal, similar to humans who usually want to grow and mature during their life time.

What about morality?

 

[lampofred]

But why did this happen? What is the “teleological” point of all of it?

Maybe because as Heraclitus and William Blake said contraries are necessary for progress. If the environment were always perfect then people would always be happy and ordered but there would be little change in the universe. Similarly if everything is completely chaotic then still nothing will ever change, everything will be predictably unpredictable. I think the balanced interplay between good and evil is what accelerates evolution and development, and if God's purpose as process theology suggests is to maximize depth of experience then perfect goodness might actually be a bit anti-God because it's one-dimensional.

Maybe that's why masochism exists, a small amount of pain can actually feel good to some people because it increases metabolic rate and depth of experience.

 

[LUH 3417]

Maybe because as Heraclitus and William Blake said contraries are necessary for progress. If the environment were always perfect then people would always be happy and ordered but there would be little change in the universe. Similarly if everything is completely chaotic then still nothing will ever change, everything will be predictably unpredictable. I think the balanced interplay between good and evil is what accelerates evolution and development, and if God's purpose as process theology suggests is to maximize depth of experience then perfect goodness might actually be a bit anti-God because it's one-dimensional.

Maybe that's why masochism exists, a small amount of pain can actually feel good to some people because it increases metabolic rate and depth of experience.

i like your answer

 

[Thybo]

What about morality?

I don't know if all process theologians think so but David Ray Griffin argues for moral realism. I did not understand all of his arguments, but I think the reasoning roughly goes along the line:

• There is some sort of moral universalism: while our actual moral convictions are shaped by our culture and tradition, there seems to be a set of cross-cultural moral values independent of time and space. Griffin calls this divine ideals plus cultural conditioning.
• Ultimately there are better and worse actions, and, therefore, moral facts can be true or false.
• We have a moral intuition or a non-sensory perception of moral.
  
• Moral exerts an influence on us.
• If moral can influence us, it is real and must exist somewhere (i.e., in the realm of the divine).

In terms of evolution, a greater richness of experience might lead to a greater moral intuition, and therefore to a better and more loving universe, closer to the moral truths.

 

[LUH 3417]

I don't know if all process theologians think so but David Ray Griffin argues for moral realism. I did not understand all of his arguments, but I think the reasoning roughly goes along the line:

• There is some sort of moral universalism: while our actual moral convictions are shaped by our culture and tradition, there seems to be a set of cross-cultural moral values independent of time and space. Griffin calls this divine ideals plus cultural conditioning.
• Ultimately there are better and worse actions, and, therefore, moral facts can be true or false.
• We have a moral intuition or a non-sensory perception of moral.
  
• Moral exerts an influence on us.
• If moral can influence us, it is real and must exist somewhere (i.e., in the real of the divine).

In terms of evolution, a greater richness of experience might lead to a greater moral intuition, and therefore to a better and more loving universe, closer to the moral truths.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

 

[Mr. God of Cars]

Ray is a fan of process theology (he said that in the latest One Radio Network interview) and he aligns his view of God with David Ray Griffin's view. In the book "Panentheism and Scientific Naturalism", Griffin argues that there is a "Divine aim towards richness of experience" and that experience is the only thing that is "intrinsically valuable." Therefore, Griffin's hypothesis is that the divine aim is to "bring about conditions that allow for the emergence of individuals with more complex modes of experience and thereby the capacity for greater intrinsic value" (p. 85). I think this is similar to what Christopher R. and Atma have posted and I could imagine that Ray sees the purpose of evolution similarily.

Thank you.

 

[Mr. God of Cars]

Evolution is the result of random mutations being acted on by natural selection.

Any talk of pantheistic ideas makes no sense. The universe did not create itself. The universe is a wonderful and unimaginably complex (to the human mind at least) creation pointing to a transcendent Creator.

Genetic mutations are one of the results of the Fall, when humanity chose to turn away from God, and we have all been repeating that same mistake day in and day out becoming vain in our imaginations seeking to deify ourselves or other created things.

The good news is is that God became a man in the form of Jesus Christ to save us from our own self-destructive pride. And even though from the moment of His incarnation we all waged war against Him, He never stopped loving us and still does.

He doesn’t want much from us, not fancy charitable works or whatever other thing we think we can do to gain favor, He just wants us to come back to Him. All of humanity is the Prodigal Son.

In fact, the universe did not create itself -- it always existed. If the universe had to be created because it's complex, then the creator is much more complex, meaning it also had to be created. If the creator need not to have being created, then neither does universe because special pleading is a fallacy. Adam and Eve are not guilty for eating the prohibited tree because they had not eaten the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to know if eating the tree was good or evil; another reason it's god's fault is because god, being omniscient, knew that upon creating the universe, Adam and Eve would eat that tree which would bring original sin into the world and its consequences. I don't even know why you had to bring christianity, genetic mutation, and Jesus to the conversation. Just because Ray Peat said evolution has a purpose, it does not automatically mean the purpose is divine or, if it is, by the Christian god.

 

[Mr. God of Cars]

The way I see it is evolution is consciousness having a myriad of experience through evolving physical forms, gradually gaining greater self-awareness and ultimately experiencing itself as unitive non-physical consciousness.

Physical is anything which can be measured or quantitated. Non-physical, by definition, means unmeasurable or nonexistent. I doubt the ultimately purpose of evolution is to experience nonexistent consciousness.

 

[Mr. God of Cars]

I wonder the same thing. God wants to trick us? God wants to test us? God wants to see how much we love him? God gave us free will and we intentionally choose everything wicked and bad?

Yeah, and an omniscient god doesn't need to test.

 

[TheSir]

Why doesn't God just tweak the environment to give us all the most nurturing environment? Everyone would love that.

Yet would anyone learn anything?

1. Is courage -- strength of character -- desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.
2. Is altruism -- service of one's fellows -- desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.
3. Is hope -- the grandeur of trust -- desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.
4. Is faith -- the supreme assertion of human thought -- desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

In other words, everything I do, good or bad, is just a reaction to something outside of me. If the environment is good, I am triggered to do good things. You would think it should be easy to just change the environment if the end goal is our happiness, salvation, whatever you want to call it.

I think you are under-estimating your ability to willfully overcome the environmental influence. The evolutionary history of man has been all about man harnessing the power of his environment for ultimate betterment of himself.

 

[Noodlz2]

Yet would anyone learn anything?

1. Is courage -- strength of character -- desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.
2. Is altruism -- service of one's fellows -- desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.
3. Is hope -- the grandeur of trust -- desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.
4. Is faith -- the supreme assertion of human thought -- desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.


I think you are under-estimating your ability to willfully overcome the environmental influence. The evolutionary history of man has been all about man harnessing the power of his environment for ultimate betterment of himself.

I don't see why anything omnipotent would need to bother with doing things. Anything omnipotent would just do nothing. If something is being done, it makes more sense that the thing doing it is doing so because they are not omnipotent, and there is something to be gained by doing something rather than doing nothing.

A thing that thinks courage, for example, is so great that it needs other things to experience it seems sort of insecure, almost like a petulant child wanting everyone to see things from their point of view. Kind of like someone forcing their friends to watch a movie they really like, even though the friends know the whole time that it's something they're not into.


I can't really see where the environment ends, and where I begin. It seems like there's a separation if I'm not thinking too hard about it, but usually, you can trace any part of "you", your thoughts, actions, feelings, to environmental factors if you look at "yourself" closely enough.

 

[Samya]

How is this not just death?

It depends on perspective, it can be viewed as physical death or as the realisation of/awakening to eternal life, or both.

I think that when the body dies we probably have a glimpse of this but then our habits/predispositions/desires (karma) bring us back to the creative process (reincarnation). In a few eastern philosophies this is seen as a process where the individual's soul (mind/ego) is becoming more and more refined/purified throughout lifetimes across species until it realizes it's unity with the universal soul. In these same philosophies creation is viewed as an illusion or a dream and realising the truth is akin to waking up from a dream to what you always were - infinite. In other words there is no death.

But why?

Why not? The universe is a beautiful creation and play of consciousness, what the Hindus call leela - the divine play. I find that in moments of understanding the question of what's the purpose, what's the meaning no longer arise as the mind is silenced in awe and appreciation.

 

[Jem Oz]

Darwin was a socially stunted numnut.

That said, if there is a God, why on his green Earth did he make it so that beautiful, radiant, innocent little children can suffer and die from cancer, or suffer abuse at the hands of monsters, scarring them forever? Seems like a sick, pathetic, disgusting cosmic joke.

 

[Christopher R.]

That said, if there is a God, why on his green Earth did he make it so that beautiful, radiant, innocent little children can suffer and die from cancer, or suffer abuse at the hands of monsters, scarring them forever? Seems like a sick, pathetic, disgusting cosmic joke.

Perhaps if process theology is closer to a correct interpretation of God than traditional theology, it may be that God isn't completely omnipotent, and so cannot prevent every tragedy. Also, as Lampofred suggested above, if a purpose of life is to "maximize depth of experience", there has to be contrast, which means that we must have both good and bad experiences. Which puts earthly suffering in a new light.