Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Does evolution upset your faith?
Whether your religion is Buddhism or Christianity or whatever else, does the theory of evolution make you wonder whether any of this is real? The fact that we are apes and evolved from fish ... this is so disconnected from concepts like nirvana etc.
0
Comments
I suppose if one comes at it from a purely physicalist approach the concept of nirvana would lose some of its impact, but there are plenty of Buddhists who don't accept an immaterial aspect to ourselves that are still strong practicioners.
Maybe you could explain better where you see a conflict or why the idea of evolution bothers you in regards to Buddhism?
Life arises, clings to itself and is reborn, adapts, becomes more complex, becomes sentient, suffers from its grasping, seeks a way out of suffering, discovers the empty nature of its existence, lets go.
So in this way all life that arises heads toward Nirvana.
Maybe you do know the difference but with the attack on science and evolution here in the US I make it a point to make this distinction.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
I meant they're both guesstimates in their field.
I still disagree with your interpretation of the importance or lack of importance of facts.
The only people who seriously rubbish Evolution are people that hold certain religious beliefs.
If you didn't follow my link from before, there is a relatively brief explanation of the scientific usage, as well as hypothesis and law.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Although I wholely accept evolution I also keep in mind that evolution is itself is just a theory, and in fact - ultimately - a belief.
I specialized in invertebrate paleontology, particularly of the Cambrian through Devonian Periods of the Paleozoic Era, concentrating on species found in the fossil-rich sedimentary rocks of western New York State. Whether it was brachiopods, rugose (or other) corals, or trilobites, I've seen far too many traceable sequences of evolution to have even the slightest belief that the concept of evolution is ever going to be disproved.
The problem that some like to seize upon (particularly in regard to hominid genera) is that every path of evolution is not filled in and therefore fully understood. So they tend to point to the "missing links" as the "Aha! See! It's not proven!" moments.
Please explain why that if the mind in its primordial essence is pure how does it become stained with defilements if the “origin” is non-birth anyway?
Why are we seeing a decrease in life forms, and not an increase? It appears that things are degrading.
But there is an end or cessation?
2) The obvious Buddhist answer to this is: In this world maybe. What about other worlds? There, there could be increases.
On a more general note, the human view of things aren't always true, precise or in a larger perspective. Pre-history is full of mass extinctions, rough nature and all kinds of "degrading". Life (or karma!) always finds a way, tough
Buddhism argues for causality, logically if everything arises due to a previous cause then you can't posit a first cause. Most religions say its due to a creator but this isn't the Buddhist view or the scientific one.
This topic isn't what this thread is really about, if you want more I'd suggest starting a new thread in order to keep this one on track.
I'm not arguing in favour of Creationism, and I agree with you. The 'evidence' for creationism is as good as non-existent. (At least I've never heard enough of an argument to sway me. But I have heard enough for a fantasy or sci-fi book!)
As far as evolution and its evidence as being overwhelming. Let me just say that a collection of facts does not necessarily create a specific truth. (It is possible these facts could fit another and better truth).
I attempt to keep myself grounded by reminding myself of that. Like I said, although I hold onto the belief in Evolution, I leave enough sober room for doubt too. Otherwise I become two things that I hate and dread.
1) Close-minded, and 2) a hidden fundamentalist.
But don't worry, I'm not going ape-shit over it!
I think it very much is related, but you are right. Perhaps an new three should be started.
The idea that humans are apes, on the other hand, or any type of animal, has always seemed absurd, ridiculous, and furthermore untruthful and un-Buddhistic to me. I also don't think that some animal species of some apelike nature "evolved" into human beings. Unlike evolution, this isn't a true scientific theory, it's merely a hypothesis. Let's keep the two apart from one another.
In summation, I'm confident that human beings are responsible for the creation of life. The closeness or relatedness of the evolution or primates and homo sapiens is relevant to this notion, but it is not critical.
But do you think that your dislike of the concept is because you want to place humans on a wholly different plane than all other life?
There's actually nothing to suggest we aren't animals, other than religious doctrines. It doesn't matter where we came from, this is just looking at it now. There's a great deal of variety in the animal kingdom, and we seem to be the most complex... that doesn't somehow disconnect us from the rest or make us something else.
This is what I mean by animal and human. And the true human existence, I think, didn't come from any animal alone, not directly. My notion against ape-human ancestry is based on the inclination that a species evolved into apes and then distinctly evolved into humans. It's a way of thinking that leads to a hypothesis based on evidence. But really there is no foundation for a full on proven scientific theory for this hypothesis.
Unlike evolution, which pretty much can't be refuted scientifically or otherwise.
Actually just nevermind, this is too funny to talk about. I can understand people wanting to be something other than animals, and the religious perspective, but not making an "existential" difference have actual weight to it. That's all in our heads, our very complex animal heads.
This is a Buddhist view that goes all the way back to the beginning. I'm not sure why I sound so strange.
It is a species moving toward sentience, toward self-awareness, that is a move toward Nirvana because it is inevitably these higher forms of consciousness (such as found in humans) that are able to perceive suffering's origin and its cessation. However the working out of a strand of karma, it will also inevitably lead to being bound to such a higher form of consciousness that can penetrate the nature of its existence and let go of craving. The evolution of species, and the move toward Nirvana, are intertwined like this.
you're right.