Evolution Was the Key in Joseph Campbell’s Loss of Faith

_{William Dembski

June 13, 2009

Education, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Joseph Campbell died in 1987 but remains influential. In this revealing video, Campbell clarifies why he left the Roman Catholic faith of his youth — EVOLUTION:

While many try to reconcile their faith with evolution, many find in evolution reason to leave the faith. Just because there’s no strict contradiction between the two doesn’t mean that the two aren’t in tension. Campbell felt the tension and left the faith.

SOURCE: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJmNBxbExuA

Postscript [added 06.14.09, 7:40AM CST]: It’s interesting to see Campbell disparage the biblical cosmology for being several millennia old and thus out of touch with current cosmologies — myths that impact our lives being myths that are compatible with contemporary cosmologies, according to Campbell. But when I studied ancient near eastern cosmologies at Princeton Theological Seminary, I found an interesting thing: they divided into cosmologies in which creation occurs through a spoken word by a supreme deity (the biblical cosmology was not unique in this regard) and cosmologies in which natural forces evolve and do all the creating, producing better and more powerful deities as time flows along (e.g., the Babylonian creation, in which Marduk is born several generations down and finally becomes the chief god). Given that this is an information age and that the Bible teaches that God created the world through a spoken word, would it not follow that the biblical cosmology is actually back in the saddle and ready again to engage culture? It would seem then that the provenance and length of time that a cosmology has been with us need not sap it of its cultural relevance or impact.

Comments

I do hope we're talking about the same religion Mr. Dodgen. Judeo-Christian principles were certainly not female-friendly:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
So men are to women what Christ is to men? Interesting.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Ouch.
"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)
Obviously I could go on and on. It should be pretty evident to all parties that religions dreamt up in male-dominated cultures inevitably preach male domination.RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Gil: “At that point my atheistic faith was totally destroyed by the evidence and simple mathematics about probabilities and combinatorics that I learned when I was a sub-teenager.” Thanks for sharing your story. What happened next though. I believe you are now a Christian? Correct. Did you look into other world religions? Yes. Why be a Christian when perhaps being a Deist is more congruent with ID? Because the Judeo-Christian depiction of the human condition comports precisely with what I observe, in others, in history, and, most importantly, in myself: made in God's image but in a fallen state, from which we are incapable of rescuing ourselves in our own strength. Thus, each individual human heart must be transformed. All attempts at creating utopia throughout history have produced the exact opposite, because they deny the need for a regenerate human heart. This cannot be imposed or mandated from without, whether through laws, sanctions, or coercion. The cross of Christ -- the hideously barbaric and unjust murder of the best man who ever lived -- is a basic and revelatory test of the human heart. Some people care, and some people don't. I care. Furthermore, Judeo-Christian civilization has ultimately produced more freedom, more prosperity, more justice (especially for women), and more innovative science than any other. I tend to judge worldviews and religions by their fruits, because that, in my experience, is the best indicator of their truthfulness. There was a fellow who once suggested this metric, and I think He knew what He was talking about.GilDodgen_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

For what it's worth, I wasn't going to reply with the "science stopper" argument because there's no point in arguing about a deity, Judeo-Christian Yahweh or othewise, until you overcome the hurdle of free will. And just like clockwork, there you go again, completely ignoring the bulk of my post. What a wonderful real-life analogy for my "humans are creatures of habit" rant! Let's try again.
Obviously my explanation isn’t good enough for you. Seeing as how trying to prove that something doesn’t exist (whether or not it is “self-evident” to certain parties) is nigh impossible, instead maybe you should make a compelling case for why you believe the concept of “free will” is a scientifically valid one. You still have yet to properly define the term we’re using, and I’d really like to see a detailed argument for the seemingly physical existence of something that isn’t physical. Or are you saying that it really isn’t physical? Because in that case it can’t be tested. In any case, your position is unclear.
I'd really like to know your position before I go about "attacking" it. All I'm really asking for is a coherent definition of "free will", because I have the suspicion that in reality we essentially have similar views (minus the Yahweh thing), and semantics are getting in the way.RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Just to preempt a fairly obvious retort that I'm trying to stop science with a "God's the explanation" statement. It's much simpler than that: if a sound philosophical argument can be made that explaining mind or the "illusion" of free will via the functioning of special arrangements of matter wholly determined by physical causation just cannot get you from A to B, well then them's the breaks. That's just the way it is. Science is thereby freed not to waste its time on the impossible, just as its freed from searching for perpetual motion, or just how the sun goes around the earth, or what is the right way to turn lead into gold via common household chemicals. It's not a loss for science, it's a gain.Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

To clarify with a rewording of the penultimate paragraph of my last post: "I have no idea whether you are in this category, but it’s the strangest thing: on the one hand, atheists want to defeat the idea of God or spirit (I mean where else could our free will come from) so they can be free to do whatever they want without worrying about divine judgment, but then they turn around and assert that they don’t believe in free will anyway. They want to be free, while asserting that there is no such thing as free.Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

"Or are you saying that it really isn’t physical? Because in that case it can’t be tested." Yeah. It's non-physical and it can't be tested. So what? It's that thing we use to choose to do scientific testing with in the first place. It's that thing that is a basic part of our makeup that allows us to freely theorize scientifically. It does not need to justify itself via scientific argument because it is the basis of scientific argument. Your supposition that everything important needs to have a physical explanation is something that you have chosen freely. The fact that you have gotten yourself into a philosophical/methodological thicket over the issue is not relevant to whether or not free will is data. I mean come on, are you engaging in this conversation because you want to, or because you are robotically compelled to? Do you have some burning need to demote your own freedom in such a way? I have no idea whether you are in this category, but it's the strangest thing: on the one hand, atheists want to defeat the idea of God so they can be free to do whatever they want without worrying about divine judgment, but then they turn around and assert that they don't believe in free will anyway. Again, surpassing strange.Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Hi Clive,
What have you read from Lewis? Just curious.
I read Mere Christianity and Miracles all the way through, and dabbled in some of The Problem of Pain. Not counting the Chronicles of Narnia books I read as a child.
Yes. The only living thing that doesn’t have free will is a “freethinker” such as yourself :)
I guess my high school biology teacher wasn't kidding when he said I was a robot! Hi Matteo,
I would never ask anyone to argue for free will. It is unnecessary. Free will is data. However, what you purport to do is explain the non-existence of something that self-evidently exists. As such you’d need to explain free will as an illusion somehow generated by material arrangements. Now I’m just trying to make it easier on you. You don’t even have to explain the illusion of free will, but only something more simple and foundational, namely how it is that arrangements of matter give rise to someone to have the illusion.
What exactly is self-evident about it? Is it self-evident in the same way that the sun revolving around the earth was self-evident to the church hundreds of years ago? In reality, free will is simply a way of speaking that we have adopted because it is useful for us to do so. It doesn’t follow that we actually have some sort of "free" will (which as of yet still requires a coherent defintion). Rather, it seems that we are pre-disposed to certain types of habits and behaviours that emerge from the interaction of the environment in which we live. Organism + Experience = predisposition to act. A prime example is personality types. No doubt you can guess how certain friends of yours are going to act before the actual event, knowingly saying to others: "Oh, that's just Phil," or "Well, that's Bob for you!" Obviously my explanation isn't good enough for you. Seeing as how trying to prove that something doesn't exist (whether or not it is "self-evident" to certain parties) is nigh impossible, instead maybe you should make a compelling case for why you believe the concept of "free will" is a scientifically valid one. You still have yet to properly define the term we're using, and I'd really like to see a detailed argument for the seemingly physical existence of something that isn't physical. Or are you saying that it really isn't physical? Because in that case it can't be tested. In any case, your position is unclear.RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

That being said, would you kindly share with us these revelation-bearing simple mathematics about probabilities and combinatorics? If it convinced you, I’m sure it would do a number on the rest of us. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/writing-computer-programs-by-random-mutation-and-natural-selection/GilDodgen_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

"Free will may suppose consciousness, but I’m not arguing for free will, so I don’t know why you keep asking me to." I would never ask anyone to argue for free will. It is unnecessary. Free will is data. However, what you purport to do is explain the non-existence of something that self-evidently exists. As such you'd need to explain free will as an illusion somehow generated by material arrangements. Now I'm just trying to make it easier on you. You don't even have to explain the illusion of free will, but only something more simple and foundational, namely how it is that arrangements of matter give rise to someone to have the illusion. So far, what we seem to have is: (1) Feedback loops in a physical computation system. (2) ? (3) Voila!Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

RDK, ------"Thank you for the suggestion; I’ll have to pick up Philosophy of the Mind, but I’m afraid I’ve already read most of C.S. Lewis’s works, and I’m not much of a Lewis fan to say the least. Most of my mind studies background comes from Dennett and Hofstadter." What have you read from Lewis? Just curious.Clive Hayden_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

RDK, ------"Mr. Hayden. Do you believe chimps have free will? What about dogs?" Yes. The only living thing that doesn't have free will is a "freethinker" such as yourself :)Clive Hayden_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

RDK, ------"When did I ever mention the moral implications of no free will in my post? There you go again Clive. Always looking into things that aren’t there. Which desire that happens to win out has nothing to do with what is ethically right. I have no idea where you’re getting this from." "Right" as in correct.Clive Hayden_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

"The emergence of consciousness comes about from the brain’s ability (once it becomes sophisticated enough) to loop back and perceive itself, very much like how some dogs and modern chimps are able to do." Again, magic. Look, I can certainly believe that the loopback and "self perception" is important to how the unconscious physical computational system operates, perhaps allowing it to do what it couldn't do before, but there is still a radical disconnect. What am I doing in the middle of such a looped back physical computational system, what are you doing in the middle of one, what is anyone doing in the middle of one? Feedback can do some neat stuff, but last I checked, when you aim a video camera at its own monitor screen, no elves pop into existence. And I can certainly turn up my guitar amp to give me infinite sustain due to feedback, but I never saw Jimi Hendrix pop into existence via such a process. Feedback may well be necessary to give a mindless robot some higher level functional behavior, but if you're asserting that it can put a genie into an empty bottle, well, I think you're going to have to show your work on that one.Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

In other word, everything is going along swimmingly, just running fine on pure physics, and then *poof*, emergence occurs? And a consciousness that can’t *really* steer anything just kind of pops into existence to enjoy the ride? And I thought materialists didn’t believe in magic.
Once again; consciousness is not free will. Free will may suppose consciousness, but I'm not arguing for free will, so I don't know why you keep asking me to. All I'm asking is to imagine a world without the notion of "free" will - a world very much like our own.
Very interesting you should say this, because you yourself are purporting that the brain can perform all of its functions without a “floating quasi-religious entity”. So which is it? Is the lack of input from something outside the computer a problem, or is it not? Do computers need a Programmer and an Operator or don’t they?
The human brain is not like a desktop computer. Not even close.
Obviously we can choose to go back and forth on this endlessly, but I don’t think anyone of intellectual distinction would choose to decide one way or another based on blog comments. Might I suggest to you the choice of reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis and Philosophy of Mind by Edward Feser? Should you choose to do so, I think you might find them fascinating. It is possible that you might then choose to view the idea of “emergence” as a bit more problematical than you currently do. That’s the choice I made. But it’s up to you!
Thank you for the suggestion; I'll have to pick up Philosophy of the Mind, but I'm afraid I've already read most of C.S. Lewis's works, and I'm not much of a Lewis fan to say the least. Most of my mind studies background comes from Dennett and Hofstadter.
Free will presupposes consciousness. If your schema cannot give a sufficient reason for consciousness, then the free will question becomes moot.
The emergence of consciousness comes about from the brain's ability (once it becomes sophisticated enough) to loop back and perceive itself, very much like how some dogs and modern chimps are able to do.RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

David, It's been a while since I looked at it, but in dealing with the idea of consciousness somehow being physically caused by arrangements of matter, "emergence" is effectively also dealt with. I wouldn't be surprised if Lewis never referred directly to the term itself...Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

"You’re conflating free will with consciousness." Free will presupposes consciousness. If your schema cannot give a sufficient reason for consciousness, then the free will question becomes moot.Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

I read Lewis's Miracles about 25 years ago, and I don't recall it dealing with emergence (which in any event wasn't really an issue when the book was published). Can you remind me of what it says about emergent properties?David Kellogg_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

"Consciousness is an emergent property..." In other word, everything is going along swimmingly, just running fine on pure physics, and then *poof*, emergence occurs? And a consciousness that can't *really* steer anything just kind of pops into existence to enjoy the ride? And I thought materialists didn't believe in magic. "Really now? So you’re purporting that the laptop or desktop you’re using right now can perform all the necessary functions to type on this message board without human input?" Very interesting you should say this, because you yourself are purporting that the brain can perform all of its functions without a "floating quasi-religious entity". So which is it? Is the lack of input from something outside the computer a problem, or is it not? Do computers need a Programmer and an Operator or don't they? Obviously we can choose to go back and forth on this endlessly, but I don't think anyone of intellectual distinction would choose to decide one way or another based on blog comments. Might I suggest to you the choice of reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis and Philosophy of Mind by Edward Feser? Should you choose to do so, I think you might find them fascinating. It is possible that you might then choose to view the idea of "emergence" as a bit more problematical than you currently do. That's the choice I made. But it's up to you!Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Hmmmm. If the brain is perfectly capable of carrying out purely physical computational operations in order to “reason” and “conclude”, then why, oh why, does it even bother to be conscious at all?
You're conflating free will with consciousness. Consciousness is a result of our ability to perceive ourselves, much like what some dogs (and chimps) can do; a "loop" if you will. Again - what part of consciousness makes our will "free"? I've asked the question a handful of times and nobody's risked an answer to it.
No other physical computer needs consciousness to get the job done, so why would the brain?
Really now? So you're purporting that the laptop or desktop you're using right now can perform all the necessary functions to type on this message board without human input? But even that's beside the case. Consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently sophisticated perception systems; it's not an add-on feature. You wouldn't say mosquitoes, or any other lower life form, are conscious, would you? What about dogs? Chimps?
Moreover, since what goes on in the subjectivity of any such “”floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains” is wholly irrelevant as a cause to behavior (since computational physics gets the entire job done quite nicely, thank you), then how in the world could natural selection mold this wholly irrelevant subjectivity in such a way that it bears the slightest relation to reality? After all, since it can have no real causative effect, it simply doesn’t matter whether or not it bears such a relation, or indeed, exists at all.
Read my answer to your question above. Consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complicated, sophisticated brain systems. Although I have to say I'm not catching the gist of this particular question. You're asking me to explain the cause and effect of something that A) doesn't partake in cause and effect, and B) doesn't exist. Anyone care to answer my questions about free will? It's very telling for the creationist side when my questions are met with more questions.RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

"So the brain’s ability to reason and conclude is refuted by the fact that instead of free will, our actions are determined causally? Right. That makes perfect sense." Hmmmm. If the brain is perfectly capable of carrying out purely physical computational operations in order to "reason" and "conclude", then why, oh why, does it even bother to be conscious at all? No other physical computer needs consciousness to get the job done, so why would the brain? If a "floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains" can't really add a damned thing to any outcome, then why aren't we merely unconscious meat robots? Why hasn't Occam swung his magic razor in this case? Moreover, since what goes on in the subjectivity of any such ""floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains" is wholly irrelevant as a cause to behavior (since computational physics gets the entire job done quite nicely, thank you), then how in the world could natural selection mold this wholly irrelevant subjectivity in such a way that it bears the slightest relation to reality? After all, since it can have no real causative effect, it simply doesn't matter whether or not it bears such a relation, or indeed, exists at all. Feel free to give me your best answer.Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Again, you had to say that, so there is nothing to forgive. Why, then, would you ask for forgiveness? Surpassing strange.
Glad we understand each other! ;)RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

"Forgive me for not wasting your time by telling you what you want to hear. Meaning ridiculous notions of some floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains." Again, you had to say that, so there is nothing to forgive. Why, then, would you ask for forgiveness? Surpassing strange.Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

"Oh, and I’m still waiting for those maths Mr. Dodgen." So am I, RDK......Gaz_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Given that you were absolutely bound and determined to make that utterance by the causal history of the universe, it became evident that it was not necessary to read the rest of your post. After all, with no free will, and due to strict physical determinism, it cannot have been caused by a process of reasoning from premises to conclusions.
So the brain's ability to reason and conclude is refuted by the fact that instead of free will, our actions are determined causally? Right. That makes perfect sense.
Besides, I think the rustlings of Gil Dodgen’s and other IDist texts are much more soothing than yours.
Forgive me for not wasting your time by telling you what you want to hear. Meaning ridiculous notions of some floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains. Mr. Hayden. Do you believe chimps have free will? What about dogs?RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

I reckon you couldn’t help believing this way, this desire is strongest in your brain….if only your other desires had mustered up more strength…I guess might makes right.
When did I ever mention the moral implications of no free will in my post? There you go again Clive. Always looking into things that aren't there. Which desire that happens to win out has nothing to do with what is ethically right. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Oh, and I'm still waiting for those maths Mr. Dodgen.RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

RDK says:
Free will is, for all intents and purposes, an illusion. Try defining for yourself what free will even means. Just think about it for a minute. What is “free will”?
Given that you were absolutely bound and determined to make that utterance by the causal history of the universe, it became evident that it was not necessary to read the rest of your post. After all, with no free will, and due to strict physical determinism, it cannot have been caused by a process of reasoning from premises to conclusions. If I am constrained to have to observe the mere outworking of physics and causal histories, it is preferable to me to watch the rustling of the leaves outside my window, rather than the rustlings of the text following your assertion. Besides, I think the rustlings of Gil Dodgen's and other IDist texts are much more soothing than yours. But then I am absolutely constrained to do so, lacking free will and all. I just can't help it. Others here might find resonance between their neural rustlings and your textual rustlings, but not me. Perhaps if the Big Bang had occurred a few Planck durations sooner or later, it might be an entirely different story. But, you know, all we can do is work with what we've been given.Matteo_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

RDK, ------"It is merely a battling of many different desires, or “wants” inside the brain. If one desire is stronger, it wins out. And these desires are in part reactions to the environment." I reckon you couldn't help believing this way, this desire is strongest in your brain....if only your other desires had mustered up more strength...I guess might makes right.Clive Hayden_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

JTaylor (27), "I’m interested too, because if my guess is right (that Gil must be in his forties/fifties)calculations are right, Gil’s sub-teenager years must pre-date all of the work of Dr. Dembski. What sources did Gil use?" Yes, I think you are right. But you know, I get the feeling Gil isn't going to be very forthcoming....Gaz_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Hi Clive, Those are decisions, driven by your will. He had a desire to choose Christianity over deism, so he did. You had a desire to post a response on this website, so you did. What is "free" about any of this? It is merely a battling of many different desires, or "wants" inside the brain. If one desire is stronger, it wins out. And these desires are in part reactions to the environment. Let's use a simple analogy. I tie up my dog Rex in the yard outside to a leash. A lady dog happens to walk by, and Rex gets a whiff of her; she just so happens to be in heat. This brings about certain extremely intense desires in Rex that he will try extremely hard to satisfy. Rex rushed towards the source of the smell, but is unfortunately thwarted by the leash he is tied to. Poor Rex. Obviously this demonstrates that some sort of will is in effect - but is it "free" will? How do humans have anything that transcends Rex's dog-like yearnings? We have intense yearnings too (whether sexual or in some other area of life), and when they are satisfied we achieve happiness. When they are not satisfied, we are forlorn, like Rex in the above example. Again - what on earth does "free" will mean? What does it mean for your will to be free?RDK_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

RDK, ------"Whether or not he had free will in the matter doesn’t change the fact that it was a silly decision. Decisions can be made without notions of “free will”, which thus far has yet to be defined by its proponents. Could you give me a coherent definition of the concept of “free will”?" I guess he had no free choice in the decision, so I guess I had no choice in submitting that response, and you had no choice in not understanding.Clive Hayden_{June 15, 2009
June
06
Jun
15
15
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply