Monday, December 21, 2015
Natural or artificial evolution?
Can the dynamics of evolution and
natural selection be replicated in voluntarily
improving the biological and intellectual standards of the human
species (eugenics)? Not exactly, so far, but the dynamics of natural
evolution could be followed generally, if we can more accurately
define the dynamics.
The artificial intelligence pushed by
the trans-humanists seems to be grounded in the belief that natural
evolution is entirely random, accidental, for them the evolution of
human beings has little or no real direction or purpose other than
successful survival and reproduction, if they even admit that.
Improving human beings biologically and intellectually is also deeply
politically incorrect which blocks such talk and makes the advance of
non-human intelligence easier to promote.
The key here for me is that while
evolution can be random, it is not entirely random or
accidental. Life has been evolving toward increasing consciousness,
intelligence, beauty, complexity, and toward the social altruism of group-selection, or goodness, and even evolving toward power. Few
people ask the question why are we driven toward success in
survival and reproduction? (Francis Heylighen has been one of the
few modern scientists to examine purpose in evolution.)
Just as the pleasure or happiness
derived from eating food is driven by the deeper requirements
of successful survival, the drive to survival and reproductive
success is driven by the deeper need of evolving toward Godhood as
the zenith of success and purpose in evolution (so contrary to many
philosophers happiness is a secondary goal). Naturalism in
evolution can therefore include the activation toward higher
evolution.
Can perfection be reached? No, just as
perfection in evolution is never final, at least not until Godhood is
attained, and even then evolution continues endlessly with no ending
and no beginning.
The evolution toward Godhood this way
includes religion. We need more than science, we need a religious
philosophy that sublimates science, as theological materialism does.
Raymond Cattell made a brilliant attempt at including religion in
science, but he rejected traditional religion, whereas theological materialism retains but transforms traditional religion in the
Twofold Path. Teilhard de
Chardin also tried to include evolution in religion but evolution for
him moved toward a completely non-material God, which is the
antithesis of material evolution. It seems to me that even
wave/particle quantum change, which some have claimed to be
spiritual, is like water changing to ice and then back again to
water---it is somehow a material change, and not a non-material dynamic.
Life has been evolving outwardly toward
the Godhood first seen inwardly, and our sacred mission is to help it along
the way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment