Re: Nancy P is not perfect

If one is a Calvinist, or presuppositionalist, I guess you could argue that it doesnt matter what Stalin read, he was predestined to be an atheist.

But if one is more of an evidentialist, then perhaps it is possible to look at in in a way that it appears that a person can be influenced by their environment enough to either accept God, or reject him.

If that is the case, then it could be argued that naturalism in general, and Darwinism in particular, might influence someone to reject God.

I think what James wants to know, is, is there any evidence to back the claim that Stalin reading Darwin, pushed him into atheism, and this lead to unrestrained mass murder? Perhaps it would help to know if those with knowledge in this area, think that there was any increase in atheism, related to Darwin in particular, or is it just a trend related to naturalism, and post-Enlightenment philosophy?

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: glennmorton@entouch.net
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:37 AM
  Subject: Re: Nancy P is not perfect

  glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:

>

> On Mon Jul 25 11:58 , James Mahaffy sent:

>

> Yes she is making a case that classical Darwinism is a world

> view and

> not just a scientific theory. I think she has some insight

> here.

>

> <<

>

>

>

> Exactly what ISN"T a world view? Isn't General Relativity a

> world view of how the universe is structured?

  Not in the sense that Nancy uses it.

>

> James further wrote:

>

> If we are going to disagree with Nancy's argument, may I

> sugest we do it

> on the basis of knowing what she says in Total Truth. The

> book is quite

> readable and I suspect may have an impact on evangelicals.

> <<

>

> Any argument that ties Darwinism with fanatical killers will

> be popular with the evangelicals. but isn't that really an

> argumentum ad hominem? What is the logical point of saying

> things like, Ted Bundy, as a child, read the story of the

> three little pigs, and became a brutal killer. And before

> someone says that this is not analogous, why not? Stalin

> read Darwin and became precisely what? The entire argument

> is fallacious, popular, yes, but also fallacious.

  You also said in another post:

> And unfortunately, those who read Pearcey's stuff and like

> it won't think that deeply about this argument. they will

> accept its validity.

>As I already indicated that is NOT what she said. She is saying that reading Darwin was something that led Stalin into >atheism (not at all that it accounted for his behavior). Above you don't like an adhominen argument. Yet I feel I am >attacked because I say something favorable about (like) some of Nancy's argument so hence I must be accepting of >anything she says.

  First, off, James, since I didn't attack you at all, I am not at all going to feel guilty about what I do perceive as a guilt-by-association argument ON THE PART OF NANCY, not you. If you feel bad or attacked it is your problem because there was no attack on you at all. This is not an attack on what you say but what Nancy said. I am a bit sensitive to this kind of nonsensical argument because I have had many YECs say that I am an apostate because I became an evolutionist. So, before you get your nose out of joint, please understand that I did not attack you. I think it is a terribly poor argument to conflate known mass murderers with belief in evolution. Do you know how many times people have claimed that Hitler was an evolutionist and therefore evolution is bad? Why is it better when someone uses someone other than Hitler?

  [quote]Yet I posted to this forum because I had some questions about a statement in Nancy's book which I >am reading critically. I also see some weaknesses in her arguments, but I need to finish the book.

  Now if instead of the three pigs, you content that Ted Bundy's reputed use of pornography affected his view of women you have a bit more of an argument. It is not in left field to suggest that Darwinism had a secularizing effect. Would Stalin have been more restrained if he had not rejected Christianity. I would hope so, but even there the actions of "Christian serbia" does not give me a lot of hope. I think that was one of the worries of Charles Hodge back in the time of Darwin was the potentially secularizing influence of the theory. [/quote]

  The problem even with porn and Bundy is that not all people who view porn become killers of women. The argument is simply fallacious. There probably isn't any one single cause. In Bundy's case it might very well be that he didn't want his family to know what he was doing to the women so he killed them to keep them quiet. If that was the case, then his use of porn didn't turn him into what he became, but his conservative christian upbringing would have played a role. No one knows what caused him to become a mass murderer but to discuss evolution as if it is tied to people we don't like like some albatross around their neck is foolish and illogical.

  [quote]One of the strengths and weaknesses of Nancy is that she likes to use examples. The ones from her life story add something to her case. But I think a bit of a weakness sometimes in her arguing with examples from a handful of important folks oversimplifies her analysis of the history she is dealing with. [/quote]

  We agree on this. It also is a bit of sophsitry in my opinion. If Nancy were to find all the people who are hated and claim that they left the faith because they read DArwin. There would be no difference between that and what she said about Stalin. The argument is illogical and fallacious. This is not an attack on you but on Nancy's argumentation. And frankly I don't see the distinction you try to make that that isn't what she is saying. By using such a person as Stalin, I think she knows the emotional impact it will have.
Received on Tue Jul 26 09:12:28 2005