Re: Wiker on Darwin's influence on morality (was Darwin's influence on Stalin)

If this book review is an accurate representation of Wiker's thesis, then it
seems to me that this book is a piece with the ID advocates' program to
paint modern science as founded upon materialistic philosophy and replace it
with a program of "theistic science." The scientific community did wrestle
with Epicurean thought during the 17th century.. The work of Pierre
Gassendi and others "baptisied" atomic theory and made it palatable, and I
believe they did so by showing that one did not have to buy Epicurean
physics, theory of knowledge and ethics as a single package. I also think
it is inaccurate to blame modern hedonism on Epicuriean materialism and
ethics. Ancient hedonists claimed to be followers of Epicurus in ancient
times also, and were criticised for it. Is this any different from blaming
Darwin for the centuries-old practice of abortion?

There was another ancient philosophical tradition that had perhap a greater
influence on the development of modern science, in my view, that of
Skepticism. It helped to shape the approach of modern science as one of
questioning ancient dogma, and contributed to the development of modern
scientific methodology. One other thought, a third ancient philosophy had a
significant influence in shaping moral thought during the Enlightenment,
greater, I believe, than Epicureanism. It was Stoicism. Much as Aquinas
had wedded Aristotelian moral philosophy to Christian moral theology in the
thirteenth century, the Enlighenment moralists admired and drew upon the
Stoic virtues. Peter Gay's two-volume work on the Enlightenment does an
excellent job of laying out the Stoic influence on Enlightenment morality.
And, then, there was the Christian Platonism of the English school in the
late seventeenth-century. The various threads of influence of the major
philosophical schools of the ancient world are rather complex.

I agree that the rise of modern science was marked by a rejection of
Aristotelianism, at least Aristotle as taught and interpreted in the
universities during the seventeenth century. Perhaps the recovery of other
ancient philosophical schools from the Renaissance on is a reflection of the
process that separated European Christianity from Aristotle. As much as I
admire Aristotle's contribution to human thought, and he is my favorate
ancient philosopher, I doubt that modern philosophy and science will return
to an Aristotelian world view.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 8:22 PM
Subject: Wiker on Darwin's influence on morality (was Darwin's influence on
Stalin)

>I am pleased that I was able to make a contribution to the discussion of
>Nancy Pearcey's writings on Darwin's influence on Stalin. I would now like
>to widen the discussion to consider the efforts of another Discovery
>Institute CSC Fellow, Benjamin Wiker, to blame moral ills on Darwinism. I
>refer to Wiker's book "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists",
>Intervarsity Press, 2002.
> I know that this book has been reviewed in some of the Christian and
> Intelligent Design literature, but as far as I know it was never reviewed
> in the secular scholarly literature. Does any one know of such a review?
> Does anyone on this forum wish to defend Wiker's thesis?
> There is a review by Richard Weikart (11/18/2002) in the Books and Culture
> Corner of Christianity Today magazine
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/145/11.0.html
> Don
>
Received on Thu Jul 28 08:36:43 2005