OK, here are my notes on the Strunk book. They were written with my
requirements in mind -- there are many other things than can be written
and debated about both the book and the Epicurean writings.
-------------
Notes from the book THE CHOICE CALLED ATHEISM, Confronting the Claims of
Modern Unbelief, by Orlo Strunk, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, Abingdon
Press, 1968. 160 pages, index. Paperback.
Orlo Strunk, Jr. was a professor of psychology and academic dean at West
Virginia Wesleyan College, and the author of other books on religious
issues. He is a Christian. The aim of the book is to present introductory
information on atheism for Christian lay people.
The seven chapters:
Part I Roots
1 Who is an atheist?
2. How Atheism comes about
Part II Kinds of Atheism
3. Marxist Atheism
4. Christian Atheism
5. Unconscious Atheism
Part III Answers to Atheism
6. The Church's Answer to Atheism
7. The Christian's Answers to Atheism
In chapter 2, he has a section titled "The Impact of Modern Science." On
page 50, he writes:
"Just a brief excursion into the history and nature of
science will give
some indication of how the contemporary view of science
was born. Several
hundred years before Christ the Epicureans taught that
science must accept
two fundamental principles. First, it should take account
of all the evidence
available, and second , it should not explain perplexing
phenomena by
referring to the possible intervention of the gods. In a
very real sense this
Greek philosophy of science was the beginning of what
might be called
methodological atheism."
The term "methodological atheism," as Strunk uses it, appears to be
identical to the term "methodological naturalism."
So Strunk does assert that the two principles,
1. Look at ALL the evidence
and
2. Ascribe nothing to the gods
are both foundational to science and date back to the Epicureans about
200 B.C.
But Strunk does not, because this is a "popularî book, give a citation.
On the Internet, there is a site devoted to Epicurus. The web address is
<www.epicurus.net>. In late April of 2002, I looked there to see if I
could find the two principles in the writings of Epicurus. I was
successful in this, although some unpacking of the writings of this most
interesting philosopher was necessary.
Here are certain quotations from the plethora of good stuff I found on
this site. After each quotation, in parentheses, are my comments:
In a section called "Principle Doctrines," I found:
22. "We must consider both the ultimate end and all clear sensory
evidence, to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will
be full of uncertainty and confusion."
(Look at ALL the evidence).
24. "If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to
distinguish between opinion about things awaiting confirmation and that
which is already confirmed to be present, whether in sensation or in
feelings or in any application of intellect to the presentations, you
will confuse the rest of your sensations by your groundless opinion and
so you will reject any standard of truth. If in your ideas based upon
opinion you hastily affirm as true all that awaits confirmation as well
as that which does not, you will not avoid error, as you will be
maintaining the entire basis for doubt in every judgment between correct
and incorrect opinion."
(Withhold judgment UNTIL you have considered all the evidence.
Differentiate between speculations and fact.)
In another document, "Vatican sayings," I find:
40. "He who asserts that everything happens by necessity can hardly find
fault with one who denies that everything happens by necessity; by his
own theory this very argument is voiced by necessity."
(David Griffin, in RELIGION AND SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM, makes fun of the
pundit who asserts determinism, or "no free will," by observing that when
such a person lectures, he has some expectation you will change your mind
and come to hold his position. This is, says Griffin, a "Performative
Self-contradiction.") Epicurus seems to have collected that idea into a
very few words.
65. "It is pointless for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has
the power to obtain for himself."
(God helps him who helps himself? My mother used to say this to my
brother, Paul, and I often. Perhaps she was an Epicurean?)
In his "Letter to Menoeceus," he writes:
"... the elements of a right life. First believe that God is a living
being immortal and blessed ... ."
(Epicurus, living before Christ, and not a Hebrew, was still, in some
sense, a religious person, and not an atheist.)
>From his "Letter to Herodotus:"
"... In the first place, Herodotus, you must understand what it is that
words denote ... the primary significance of every term employed must be
clearly seen... ."
(The principle of clear definitions -- agreed to by everyone involved.)
"... we are bound to believe that in the sky revolutions, solstices,
risings and settings, and the like, take place without the ministration
or command, either now or in the future, of any being who at the same
time enjoys perfect bliss along with immortality.."
(Ascribe nothing to the gods. Methodological Atheism or methodological
naturalism).
"... to arrive at accurate knowledge of the cause of things of most
moment is the business of natural science ... ."
(Defining what natural science is about in a very few words).
"If then we think that an event could happen in one or other particular
way out of several, we shall be as tranquil ... ."
(Understanding that there may be many different theories all of which
"explain" the same facts).
>From his "Letter to Pythocles:"
"... one must not be so much in love with the explanation by a single way
as wrongly to reject all the others from ignorance of what can, and what
cannot, be within human knowledge, and consequent longing to discover the
undiscoverable."
(Understanding that there MAY be things beyond the ken of science. And
arguing that one ought not be so "in love" with his own explanation as to
arbitrarily reject all others without giving them a fair hearing).
"... let the regularity of their orbits be explained in the same way as
certain ordinary incidents within our own experience; the divine nature
must not on any account be adduced to explain this ... ."
("Ascribe nothing to the gods" again).
"... there are several other ways in which thunderbolts may possibly be
produced.
Exclusion of myth is the sole condition necessary... ."
("Ascribe nothing to the gods" again. Also noting that multiple theories
may be adduced to explain many events).
John Burgeson, April 30, 2002
------------------------------------------------
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, philosophy and much more)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 30 2002 - 12:07:11 EDT