From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:09:17 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1hja80INN7tp@morrow.stanford.edu>, salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

^>>Evolution logically denies the next world. 

^	Not true, evolution, and science in general, make no comments on
^a next world or other world or supernatural relm, or one's own spirituality,
^and indeed to have one's religion or spiritual awareness to be threatened
^by the circumspect language of science and the provisional findings of
^speaks of a weakened awareness of the scared. 

The general statement that we are derived from inert materials via a long
sequence of essentially chance events covering many millions of years does
not allow for a continuing spiritual existence for man (beyond this life)
UNLESS you wish to make the claim that man has evolved from inert materials
SPIRITUALLY at the same time that he has physically.  That in my view would
amount to trying to go the theory of evolution one stupider...  difficult,
but perhaps not impossible.


^If this is not true, then
^the person's sense of religion that feels threatened by evolution is
^corrupted by his wanting wordly power and coercion over others.

I don't feel terribly THREATENED by evolution.  You believing in evolution
is no WORSE than somebody believing in the Easter rabbit.  It just seems
to me a bad thing to have all of American academia propounding such a theory;
it won't look good in the history books.
^
^>> Without something beyond this
^>>world, what meaning would you claim your life has?
^
^	Does "Meaning" come only from supernatural acts and trancendant
^moral messages? 

No, but neither can it come from something which will leave no trace after
5000 years and, given evolution, that includes your entire existence.


^How about deeds in this world? How about wisdom about
^this world? 

^See above.


^Were Ted able to elaborate on
^the implications of his own opinons and debate the opposing analysis
^better, this debate might evolve.

^	1) No sufficiency has been provided for a early prefection in
^	  the condition of Man.

A catastrophe such as the flood doesn't leave much in the way of such
evidence, particularly if the previous existence was largely without 
any need for architecture as we know it.

I've mentioned Richard Heinberg's book, "MEMORIES AND VISIONS OF PARADISE",
and that may be the best I can do for the present.

^	2) No argument for the cause or necessity of a "Fall" of man
^	   has been given.

For all I know, the fall of man, which accompanied the demise of the old
solar system order, may have been occasioned by nothing more than bad luck,
the old god, gods, or whoever/whatever created life on this earth being
unable to prevent it.

^	3) No argument that Man's spiritual enlightment is anything so
^	   remote as the past or far away has been made.

I would need clarification on this one.  
^
^	4) No proscription of how Man improves his condition, or even if
^	  he can or needs to has been made.

You could start by purchasing a copy of the Quirk/Bridwell book and working
to restore the American democracy.  

Beyond that, my own feeling is that man will generally become as happy as is
possible in this world when he comes to measure wealth in terms of happiness,
rather than the other way around as is the case now.

^	5) No argument that Man cannot know widsom without help, especially
^	   supernatural help, has been made.

Nor will you hear that one, at least not from me.
^
^	6) No accounting of morals has been given that could operate
^	   in the absense of a supernatural authority.

I see middle-class morality as a number of survival mechanisms which have
evolved over the years.

A proper understanding of the antediluvian existence indicates that a lot of
what we call morality was then unnecessary.  Survival was no large problem,
the earth having been a sort of a garden then, and there is the further 
observation that a number of the things which morality mitigates against
would have been either difficult or impossible.  How, for instance, would
you go about cheating somebody who could comprehend your thoughts as easily
as his own (the telepathic group consciousness before the flood)?
^
You assume then that much of what we regard as morality has developed as a
response to conditions of our own age.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE