Re: [asa] (facts on Darwin and his motives) on science and meta-science

Heya Bernie,

Depends on what you're asking me if I dispute. That you read a book that
said Darwin was a true believer? No, I don't - I'm very willing to believe
there's a book that claims that. I'm also sure you're aware there are books
that have sharply different views of Darwin's beliefs and motivations, and
ones that take issue with how he presented himself. I dispute the
characterization of Darwin you're offering here, and would likely disagree
with at least some books written of him. I'd do that even if Darwin himself
claimed "I was a fervent religious believer!" - Larry Flynt claimed to have
been born again at one point. Let's say, there's judicious room for doubt
Flynt was on the up and up. No matter what pillars Flynt may have been
responsible for.

As for Darwin's "problem of evil" being wrapped up in evolution - no.
Darwin's most famous example of his problem of evil is the Ichneumonidae
wasp, but none of his points about it require this wasp evolved. Same for
Darwin's problem with hell - evolution has nothing to do with his
grandfather being condemned to such, even if that belief were true. And
again, if you want to say Darwin thought evolution and theism were
incompatible, you're up against Darwin himself on the matter. Was he lying?
That's less a problem for my view of him than yours.

As for evolution, I'm saying his particular narrative of it - the way he
packed metaphysics into it and drew his line on those metaphysics - was the
weaponization. The science itself is of marginal use at best, and just as
easily lends itself to theism in my view.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Hi Schwarzwald-
>
>
>
> I relayed the point that I read a book which said Darwin was a true
> believer when he started the Beagle boat trip and even preached to the
> crew. Do you dispute that? From what I remember, Darwin studied for the
> priesthood, even learning the ancient languages of the Bible. I believe it
> was the science/observations of evolution that turned him from belief- not
> his desire to be an atheist (or agnostic) that made him make-up the theory
> of evolution, as I thought you were implying.
>
>
>
> You said: “When he did give his reasons for doubting God, they hardly
> involved evolution itself - he relied on the problem of evil, with some
> pretty weak arguments in that vein.”
>
>
>
> Think about Darwin’s “problem with evil.” Isn’t that wrapped-up in
> evolution, for the descriptions of evil?
>
>
>
> When you say: “Darwin intended to weaponize science for atheism,” that
> seems so backwards to me. Why would Darwin be a pillar in his local church
> and community if he was anti-religion? From what I read, he was such a
> pillar.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:51 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] on science and meta-science
>
>
>
> Bernie,
>
>
>
> First of all, your speculations about Darwin's desires don't speak to
> whether or not Darwin intended to weaponize science for atheism. I say it's
> evident if you read his writings and letters that he was not concerned
> simply with science, but with metaphysics and philosophy. When he did give
> his reasons for doubting God, they hardly involved evolution itself - he
> relied on the problem of evil, with some pretty weak arguments in that vein.
>
>
>
> But if we want to play that game, well, we do have the famous quotes:
> Darwin saying he considers it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an
> ardent theist and an evolutionist", and his insistence that "I have never
> been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think
> that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my
> state of mind."
>
>
>
> So, Bernie, if you're going by Darwin's words.. not just the "evidence" of
> evolution but the full blown assumed fact of evolution had no need to make a
> man an atheist by his view. And Darwin claims he never denied the existence
> of God, but was at most an agnostic on the matter. Me, I have no problem
> with any of this - I think the evidence shows that Darwin wasn't enthralled
> with Christianity early on, and he was more concerned with presenting
> himself as a believer than really being one. But if you want to argue that
> Darwin thought evolution was only compatible with atheism, or that he denied
> God (not just Christianity, but God, period), you're likely going to have to
> call him a liar. Have fun with that.
>
>
>
>
>
> I see it totally backwards for you. I consider the point that Darwin
> WANTED to be a believer. He just couldn’t believe, based on the evidence.
> I read that when Darwin started on the Beagle voyage, he was a preacher to
> the crew! It is not at all like he wanted to reject God and developed
> evolution for that reason. I believe Darwin was intellectually fulfilled,
> and it is evident in his writings.
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 13 16:39:19 2009