Glenn, Bob, George, James, ...
>In general I loathe the fallacious connections between Darwin and the evils of the world as much as anyone. However, I
>think that it's fair to say that if an individual, after reflecting on his/her own intellectual development attributes to some
>author some impact on his/ her own thinking, we ought to recognize that. If Stalin says that he was moved to atheism or
>Marxism or genocide or whatever because of his reading of Darwin, isn't that a legitimate connection to note? Stalin is
>responsible for his own intellectual development and the consequences of his thought. (By the way, even a Calvinist and
>a presuppositionalist can say that--whatever Jack's comment was supposed to mean.) Darwin is not. I haven't seen the
>Nancy P. work in detail, nor the basis of it in Stalin's biographers. Tracking a thinker's intellectual development is a
>worthwhile historical exercise. I think we ought to be reticent to give knee-jerk reactions to these sorts of things. We
>don't like when people do it to us, let's not do it back.
I don't see it that way. I see the choice of Stalin. Why not study the intellectual development of H. G. Wells, for which there is ample and clear evidence that Darwinism directed his position from Christianity to atheism? He wrote:
"If all the animals and man have been evolved in this ascendant
manner, then there would have been no first parents, no Eden,
and no Fall. And if there had been no Fall, the entire
historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin
and the reason for an atonement, upon which current teaching
bases Christian emotion and morality, collapses like a house of
cards."~H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1961), p. 776-777
And he was an intellectual. Was Stalin?
Why not study the influence of Lyell on Ruskin, of whom it is written:
John Ruskin 1819-1900
"His early passion for mineralogy meant that he was forced
to confront the disturbing theological implications of Lyell's
Geology. 'You speak of the flimsiness of your own faith,' he
confided in his undergraduate contemporary and lifelong friend,
the medic Henry Acland in 1851—when they were just past thirty.
'Mine, which was never strong, is being beaten into mere gold
leaf, and fluters in weak rags from the letter of its old forms;
but the only letters it can hold by at all are the old Evangelical
formulae. If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do
very well, but those dreadful Hammers! I hear the clink of them
at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses.' " John Ruskin
cited by A. N. Wilson, God's Funeral,(New York: Ballantine Books,
1999), p.266
I too, hear the clink of those hammers at the end of every Bible verse. It is why I left YEC.
No, the choice of Stalin and people like that rather than the hundreds of others who could be chosen is for political impact. Sorry, Terry, I simply disagree that the choice was meant to illustrate the intellectual development of an individual. BTW, who ever thought of Stalin as an intellectual? I certainly don't read books with the title, The Collected Philosophical Works of J. Stalin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 26 2005 - 18:26:35 EDT