Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: Anthony Campbell <ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:04:34 -0400 (EDT)
On 2005-08-25, Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
> A final comment regarding "Ruse demonstrates that there is no
> necessary conflict between Christianity and evolutionism":
>
> In my experience, philosophers don't really 'demonstrate' things.
> Instead, they construct rationalizations of intellectual positions
> which may sometimes help to clarify the issues. Ruse's discussion
> of compatibility between Christianity and Evolutionism strikes me
> as very unconvincing. ISTM that he has a distorted picture of
> the core Christian beliefs, and perhaps also of the core evolutionist
> beliefs. All three great monotheistic religions have at their core
> the doctrine that God works in history - particularly human history.
> Evolutionism has as its core belief that God does not guide history.
> Any accomodation between these two ideologies must do some violence
> to one or the other. ISTM that Ruse had to do some pretty radical
> surgery on Christianity to construct his rationalization. In this
> case, the philosopher's work did little to clarify the issues, IMHO.
>
>
It certainly is not the case that Ruse is an Intelligent Designer.
>From my review of his book "Darwin and Design":
For some modern Darwinists, notably Richard Dawkins, the clear
implication of Darwinism is that there is no place for purpose
or direction in evolution. Progressive theologians, however,
insist that there is no conflict between Darwinism and theism,
and this is the question that Ruse takes up in his later
chapters. He gives natural theology a fair summing up but
concludes that it cannot ultimately work. "The Darwinian
revolution is over, and Darwin won." We must "recognize that
Dawkins is right, that Darwinism is a major challenge to
religious belief and that you cannot simply pretend that nothing
very much has happened."
Perhaps rather surprisingly, however, Ruse continues to argue
for what he calls a theology of nature (as opposed to a natural
theology). This seems to rely on an aesthetic response to nature
-- a near-mystical appreciation of the beauty of the living
world. He quotes a remark once made to him by Ernst Mayr:
"People forget that it is possible to be intensely religious in
the entire absence of theological belief." This attitude would
be quite at home in Buddhism but I think that many Christians
would find it too impersonal.
In another book, "The Darwinian Revolution" (also reviewed on my site)
Ruse looks in some depth at how ideas of evolution developed in the
first half of the 19C and makes it clear that the notion of a
straight-forward conflict between science and religion is too simple. In
some ways religion actually helped the cause of science.
Anthony Campbell
--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
Assassins, homeopathy, and skeptical articles).
Email: ac<at>acampbell.org.uk
.
- References:
- Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: Robert Karl Stonjek
- Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Prev by Date: Have lEPT up on this box to announce my personal opinion of people!
- Next by Date: Re: Human design and natural "design"
- Previous by thread: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Next by thread: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
