I Bin Thinkin’

Posted by zeno on March 17, 2009

OK, full disclosure… I am a Christian.

I am, in fact, an Orthodox Christian, but that is an aside. I ended up there after a fairly lengthy and involved journey that doesn’t need explained in this post. It’s enough to say that I became a Christian (practicing as opposed to nominal) in my mid-twenties as a result of a decision. An intellectual, and emotional, decision.

The years since then have merely increased my comprehension that there are many, many things that we don’t know, and can’t know, about the universe and our place in it, and that my response and choice (if that’s what it was) is as valid as any. I am as convinced as ever that my choice was the right one for me, and I firmly believe that a choice, a considered choice, does have to be made by each of us.

Recently my reading has skimmed religion, evolution, creationism, physics, metaphysics, philosophy, theology and the human experience, in both fiction and non-fiction. It has made me think quite deeply, I like that.

A question that bubbled to the surface yesterday was “what is the purpose/point of evolution?”

However you cut this particular cake, there has to be a purpose or an aim to evolution. Otherwise, why evolve? Evolution implies continuous improvement or adaptation to better extend “life”. Either that or it suggests that change is merely serendipitous, in that an accidental change is only successful when there’s nothing around to destroy it. So, therefore, the “purpose” of evolution, intentionally, or as a by-product of accidental dynamic change, is the continuation and propagation of life. A battle for survival. Survival of the fittest, survival of the best adapted.

In any battle the winner only wins, and it’s the most effective fighting methods that bring victory; strength, ingenuity, adaptability, speed, weaponry. But, if the winner is only the one left standing at the end and the environment that remains no longer supports him, evolution scores a Pyrrhic victory.

Then along comes homo-sapiens and we find we are able to adapt to suit pretty much any environment (primarily by adapting our environment to suit us). It’s still a battle for survival though, and the hunger, not just protect ourselves but to defeat whatever threatens us, is why we are here; and asks another question “Is humanity the pinnacle of evolution?”

Are we currently wearing the evolutionary yellow jersey, or does that accolade go to insects… or bacteria… or perhaps algae?

It has been said that it is sentience that sets humanity apart from other life forms. It’s an evolutionary step that allows us to look forwards, and backwards, in time and to evaluate the consequences of our actions. Sentience, and all that goes along with it (conscience, emotion, abstract thought etc), benefits us enormously in evolutionary terms, “Look before you leap” is a very worthwhile motto, but does it benefit us more than any of the evolutionary advantages that viruses or insects have? Consequences are irrelevant to them, for the most part, because of their great numbers. Variety is their particular strength, sentience is ours.

Of all currently evolved life-forms humanity certainly has the capability to destroy life on our planet. We are the most dangerous life-form, if not the most evolved, so is sentience nature’s way of balancing the capability we have evolved? Are the two linked… conscience and destructive power?

From a purely evolutionary viewpoint, our much cherished humanity, or the things that we cherish about or humanity (aesthetics, passion, creativity, determination, love etc), is merely an evolutionary by-product and has no meaning beyond acting as a governor to our burgeoning destructive potential. Tears and laughter, pleasure and pain, are simply behavioural adjustors… even charm has its evolutionary use. As we are merely evolved, we are essentially no different to the virus or the insect or the fungus…

I don’t find that a pleasant thought. Not because I want to consider myself more important than, say, a flea but because that thought process concludes that a flea, or a jellyfish, or a rat all have just as much right to life as we do. Therefore human life is as disposable, or as important  as any other life. Perhaps you think that’s true. What would you do if you discovered you had tapeworm?

So we have evolved to the point where it feels important to reconcile why we are what we are, but frankly we don’t, and possibly can’t, know.

Religions are considered by some to be humanity’s ignorant response to the unknown. Possibly there is truth in that but, as there are so many unknowables, perhaps it’s wise that our responses should encompass the unknown.

Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Animism, Daoism, Jainism and a thousand others… each religion is an attempt to explain ourselves, and each probably touches at least part of the truth. The evolutionary value of religion is, possibly, that it prevents humanity going mad.

Humanism, from what I can see, is anti-religious (in the nicest possible way). A rejection of religion, yet by placing humanity firmly at the centre of the universe it also invokes religion. In essence humanism is a religion-free religion. In an evolutionary sense, it has she same value as religion, but without the faith.

Does meaning exist because humans make it exist, or does it exist anyway?

Science can’t actually explain things; or rather it can’t give reasons for things. Science can certainly describe the how and can make accurate predictions based on accurate observation, but any “whys” that science answers are pure opinion. Why evolution? Why speed of light? Why only three visible dimensions?

Science is limited by our comprehension and our comprehension is limited by evolutionary need.

Science does, however, have enormous evolutionary value because it allows humanity to innovate and adapt our universe. Yet science alone doesn’t feed that core essence of our humanity, the “sentience”, or at least not for most people, and so we’re back to religion again.

Finally… by virtue of its nature (pun intended), evolution surely must end in the total annihilation of life, otherwise evolution (as accident) is incorrect. That begs the question “what’s behind it?” and leaves us with the only other option… evolution by design of some sort?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio…