Re: Evolutionary Philosophy [was: Conflicts and confrontation]

Gregory Arago wrote:

> Arago: Perhaps these two authors, one writing in book form and one in
> article form for a philosophy journal, can help shed some light on what
> evolutionary philosophy is and isn’t. Is evolutionary philosophy strictly a type of
> natural philosophy or does it press on the boundaries of what is ‘natural,’
> leading people to question their faith in the transferability of a scientific
> concept (eVo) into philosophy and beyond? Isn’t evolutionary philosophy
> important for discussion at ASA?
>

I still don't really see it as "philosophy", rather it is
mostly scientism. I think it (evolutionary "philosophy") has
been discussed from time to time here, but the thing is,
that is just so shallow, that you talk a little about it,
and soon there is nothing more to say?

Philosophy is about finding meaning. If you start with
a premise that evolution is all that was, is and ever
will be, you've already chucked meaning out the window.
Evolution is a scientific tool. Philosophy can (indeed
must) incorporate evolution to help understand what
meaning exists in the world, but it is one of a multitude
of avenues of inquiry, and not a sole end in itself.

> ~~
> We should think of God as “the evolutionary-historical process that has
> brought us into being.” ? Gordon Kaufman (<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">
> Theology for a Nuclear Age. Manchester U, 1985: 43)
>
> YES/NO!!!
>
>

I don't expect that this should be read as cheesy
scientism, only that he understands that he must reckon with
evolution. There is an enormous difference.
Anyway, we need to understand what he really means before
we take it further.

By Grace we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Mon Jun 5 09:28:07 2006