Charles Darwin and the principle of evolution

Share |

Charles Darwin in 1859 released his book outlining the process of 'natural selection' by which living things have evolved on Earth. In this video about evolution Richard Attenborough highlights in single terms the process by which natural selection accounts for the development of all life forms including humanity. It is noteworthy that important fossil finds are still being made today which give ever greater clarity to this natural process. Radiometrics have also been important in determining the age of fossils and rocks, whilst the genetics is promising to unlock even further discoveries.

My particular interest is in the value of science to the development of philosophy and politics. What this video does highlight on this subject is how religion is not only a repudiation of science, it played a big part in repressing scientific development. Darwin postponed publication of his works out of deferrence to the ignorance, superstition and fears of his Christian brethren. Today science and indeed all knowledge and even our livelihoods are being repressed by religion. Such is the depth of the betrayal of human nature.
You can see the video about Charles Darwin and evolution at this website.
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com - just as importantly Andrew Sheldon evolves. Always testing convention.

The Universe - A justification for God

Share |

People look at the magnificence of the universe, its expanse and complexity, and conclude that this is evidence of a God. I look at this reality and consider it justification for no God. Let's consider the evidence:
1. Science suggests that the universe is 20 billion years old, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Despite this Christianity is a very human-centric philosophy. I cannot argue that religion is consistent with science, whether astrophysics or human nature. Religion to me is a repudiation of everything I know. I can disprove every argument you can make about religion.
2. Grand design: The idea that the universe is a miraculous design, so there must be a designer. This ignores the reality that there was no conscious designer for the universe, it developed or unfolded as a result of its nature. i.e. The materials comprising the universe developed as they must, in accordance with their physical properties.
3. Creation. The argument that there must be a God, otherwise who created the universe 20 billion years ago. The origin of the universe is a speculative issue, however I would posit that the universe was never created; that it has always existed. I would assert that every 20 billion or so the universe goes through a 'Big Bang', or sometimes perhaps smaller bangs. I don't think the universe has the uniformity in its evolution as posited by physicists.
4. Motive: A human-centric God as the maker of the universe and humanity is dubious when you consider the requirement for God to be so patient. He would have to wait 4 billion years for the Earth to form, and 20 billion years for the universe to develop before he could have created humanity. It seems more probable that he does not exist, and Christians are ignorant idiots.
5. Causation: The idea of a God defying all the natural laws that drive every other physical entity is another basis for driving a peg through the Christian hypothesis/'scare model'. The Christian philosophy is a repudiation of human nature, as shown elsewhere.

For a greater appreciation the smallness of humanity in the context of the universe watch this video clip. I recommend it not to show how small you are. You are very important to you, and to anyone who values you. You cannot detach the value from the valuer, which it was Christianity asserts. You are not intrinsically good. You are good for reasons....as determined by a thing which has the capacity to value, whether your pet dog, a presidential nominee, or your wife.

-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Religion in Western countries

Share |

People reading my religious blog might be inclined to find me very critical about religion. They might find merit in my statements about religion in the third world. True, the third world is full of desperate people who use religion as a crux to manipulate or deceive others out of money. They will assert in defence of religion 'that that does not happen in the West'.

I want to make a number of points to dispel any residue Christianity in you:
1. Religion in the Western colonies was just as manipulative historically as it was in the third world. Afterall religion was essentially a 'franchise for manipulation' developed in the West before it was spread to the developing nations. You can consider religion to be the first franchise. It was not about accumulating money, it was about accumulating souls.
2. Modern religion is not as manipulative as it was in the old days because general standards of education standards have improved. Not just in your country, but internationally. Churches have to apply quality control measures. Yet no accountability or special ethical standards have been adopted by organised religion. It is all about managing perceptions. In fact, with respect to sexual abuse, the church has proven highly secretive, soliciting confidentiality agreements and offering pay-offs to 'aggrieved' persons. In the same way the Church has also been protective of its 'brand', and it maintains strict compliance with central policy. This would be understandable and logic if indeed logic and judgement were facets of religion, but they are repudiated by the churches. Faith and acceptance were the premises I was raised upon.
3. Rule of law. You cannot get away with deceit in the West as you can in developing countries. People in developed countries have more to lose from breaking the law, both in terms of future employability, damages from any successful law suit, and the prospect of imprisonment. In developing countries, people are less likely to seek legal remedy, police are less likely to take action, and courts are more readily paid off. The poor have no chance against the rich, if only because they don't have the education or support to take successful action.
4. Ethical values. Traditional values in developing countries are often of a low standard, particularly in the lower income portion of the population. There tends to be greater reliance on gratuities, a stronger desire for 'easy gains', greater cynicism about the system (thus greater willingness to breach the rules of that system), less judgement, greater acceptance of collectivist/religious philosophies (ie. They embody these philosophies as opposed to giving lip-service to them). In truth they are the practical manifestation of a Christian people, yet they are materially and spititually they are broke. They have greater integrity than any rich man in their city because they have nothing to give.
5. Western romanticism. The Romantic tradition associated with the Western Industrialisation is a philosophical system that sits juxtaposed against the naturalism of the prior period. Unfortunately romanticism never had a complete philosophical justification. It was smeared by collectivists who far out-numbered the logical exponents of justice. Romanticism still requires a defence today.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com