Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't know. What is 'Evolutionism' according to you? I thought it was just a pejorative that some creationists use to do basically what it is you seem to be doing -- to just sort of assert that evolutionary theory is more like an ideology than a scientific theory. I always thought they did this because they wrongly think that the supporter of evolutionary theory is thereby committed to certain normative claims.
Is "Evolutionism" still a "normal" scientific theory or has it become a new ideology, a new "way of thinking" ?
Originally posted by LemonJelloTheory of Evolution -> Evolutionism -> Culture of Death
I don't know. What is 'Evolutionism' according to you? I thought it was just a pejorative that some creationists use to do basically what it is you seem to be doing -- to just sort of assert that evolutionary theory is more like an ideology than a scientific theory. I always thought they did this because they wrongly think that the supporter of evolutionary theory is thereby committed to certain normative claims.
Any questions?
Originally posted by bbarrYeah, I'm afraid that is about the depth of ivanhoe's insight.
Theory of Evolution -> Evolutionism -> Culture of Death
Any questions?
------------------------
ivanhoe, you are a supporter of evolutionary theory, and you already stated that your church accepts it and teaches it. So obviously, there must be some other set of claims not entailed by evolutionary theory itself that you think the adherent of Evolutionism is committed to. What are they? (bbarr already asked you this, but you failed to deliver.)
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe: I am always amazed at how closely our thoughts can correspond.
Usually, scientific theories are being discussed in the realm of the sciences .......... but it seems to me that in the present American ideological landscape "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" !) is more and more seen and treated as a new overall ideology, both by its advocates and its opponents. An ideology, not just capable of explaining how species ...[text shortened]... ientific theory or has it become a new ideology, a new "way of thinking" ?
I agree with you completely and have been saying the same thing in spirituality.
After two pages, this "ideology" still lacks any definition.
Incidentally, if we could assume that evolutionism relies on being convinced by evolutionary theory (therefore, anyone who is unconvinced of it cannot be an evolutionist, sorry to be making such assumptions, but given how unclear your definition of "Evolutionism" is, my hands are tied on that one):
"Ideology ... is usually taken to mean, a prescriptive doctrine that is not supported by rational argument."
[D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970]
If the above is true, and it's certainly always seemed the case to me, then the common definition of ideology precludes scientific movements from being ideologies.
Ideologies like communism/capitalism/socialism etc. (the three examples which dictionary.com gave) are not based on an underlying rationale the way your fictional "evolutionism" seems to be (if you've misinterpreted the arguments I think you've misinterpreted). If someone comes along with a hypothesis which could replace the theory of evolution, then this fictional "evolutionism" disappears, does it not?
I understand your misinterpretation, the attack on rational thought has gotten to a stage where salvoes are being launched from either side. Certain members get a bit too wide-eyed and fist waving about it (like Dawkins).
The funny thing is, that for the rational side, he is very much the exception (and a bit of an in-joke for many of us "copy-cat" Europeans, you'll find that most people with a developed understanding of evolution and atheism find his argumentative style distasteful)
p.s. I apologise if offense is taken at me using rational/irrational as the definitive terms here offense is not my aim, but I cannot say science/religion as this is not (yet) a religion vs. science debate.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrRichard Dawkins's fundamental claim, made on the basis of his scientific authority, that believing in God is a delusion. He (mis)uses the scientific theory of evolution to "prove" that there is no God. In short: The ideology of Evolutionism more or less implicetely claims atheism is a scientifically based position.
In your opinion, what are some of the main claims this new ideology is committed to? What is the content of the actual ideology?
Now, do you agree with the fact that this ideology of "Evolutionism" exists in the USA and is being spread ?
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightI have not been following the discussions in Spirituality lately .... but I welcome the thought that you agree with me on this issue.
Ivanhoe: I am always amazed at how closely our thoughts can correspond.
I agree with you completely and have been saying the same thing in spirituality.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf we view science as a rational enterprise, which I think is a realistic thing to do, then atheism is of course the scientifically based position. Dawkins, though with a little more vitriol than necessary, uses not just evolutionary theory, but also Bayesian philosophy, Popperian philosophy and internal inconsistencies within the theistic viewpoint to make his case. It is not just evolution which counters religious thought, a few ccenturies ago it was the earth being the centre of the universe, etc.
Richard Dawkins's fundamental claim, made on the basis of his scientific authority, that believing in God is a delusion. He (mis)uses the scientific theory of evolution to "prove" that there is no God. In short: The ideology of Evolutionism more or less implicetely claims atheism is a scientifically based position.
Now, do you agree with the fact that this ideology of "Evolutionism" exists in the USA and is being spread ?
A rational approach leaves many questions. An atheist would say that these questions give life its joys, the search for answers. from an atheistic viewpoint I have to say that theistic thought does not seek knowledge, but explanation. Explanations which don't hold under rational scrutiny. Just as being convinced by evolutionary theory doesn't make you an atheist, being an atheist doesn't convince you of evolutionary theory. As a result, "evolutionism" does not and cannot implicitly claim that atheism is a scientifically based position. They are two very different things, but both being based in rational inspection of the universe tend to come together. That is just a tendancy.
As an example, apples and oranges are two completely different things, but both come from trees. Likewise with atheism and evolutionary theory. Two very different things, but with the one common basis, and by no means exclusively.
Originally posted by ivanhoeDawkins' arguments against the proposition that God exists are ridiculously bad. There can be no valid argument from the proposition "Evolution is the best explanation of the variety, structure, etc. of life on Earth" to the proposition "There is no God". Suppose a theist espoused the Newtonian view that God established physical laws, set the universe to motion, and thereafter ceased causally interfering with the universe. Dawkins' arguments against the proposition that God exists are largely a priori and largely sloppy. For a no-holds-barred refutation of Dawkins' arguments, see Alvin Plantinga's review "The Dawkins' Confusion". Plantinga is a brilliant theist and philosopher out of Notre Dame.
Richard Dawkins's fundamental claim, made on the basis of his scientific authority, that believing in God is a delusion. He (mis)uses the scientific theory of evolution to "prove" that there is no God. In short: The ideology of Evolutionism more or less implicetely claims atheism is a scientifically based position.
Now, do you agree with the fact that this ideology of "Evolutionism" exists in the USA and is being spread ?
I certainly do think that the truth of evolutionary theory requires theists to revise their opinions on certain empirical matters regarding the phenomena that evolution explains. I think that as scientific inquiry proceeds our prior hypotheses (both natural and supernatural) about empirical matters needs to be revised. I see no reason why a theist cannot maintain that scientific inquiry can lead to revisions in conceptions of God or the manner in which He operates in the world. None of this entails atheism, how could it?
I largely agree that evolutionary theory leads some to embrace atheism. Some people even think they can draw moral conclusions from evolutionary theory. This is all confusion on their part, and no small part of it results from the way religious folk have reacted to the theory. It is mostly religious folk who erroneously claim that evolutionary theory leads to atheism and then to nihilism. Is it any wonder that people who don't know that much about evolutionary theory, philosophy or religion mistakenly think that evidence in support of evolutionary theory must be evidence against religion. There are also strident atheists who claim that evolutionary theory shows that theism is false. As I noted above, this is a mistake. To the extent that Evolutionism is being spread in the U.S., I think it is due more to the mistaken views religious folk have about the consequences of evolutionary theory than it has to do with the proselytizing of philosophical amateurs like Dawkins.
Note: I really am not sure about the extent of Evolutionism in this culture, nor about the rate of its spread. I just know that I get more undergraduates espouse this sort of belief than I did five years ago. I know that the flurry of books by Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens brought a bunch of media attention to this issue, but I don't know the extent to which the views of these authors are being adopted by the public.
Originally posted by bbarrExcellent post, but if I, as an atheist might add one point which I think Ivanhoe is really lambasting.
Dawkins' arguments against the proposition that God exists are ridiculously bad. There can be no valid argument from the proposition "Evolution is the best explanation of the variety, structure, etc. of life on Earth" to the proposition "There is no God". Suppose a theist espoused the Newtonian view that God established physical laws, set the universe to mot ...[text shortened]... now the extent to which the views of these authors are being adopted by the public.
Back in the good old days God was the only game in town as far as explanations of the universe and the things in it went. However, as scientific progress continues, the role of God in those explanations is gradually decreasing, and as any good theist knows infinite regression is not a happy state of affairs.
True, nothing we have learned from science has refuted God, but nothing has supported him either, and his position and power base is slowly being eroded. That, more than anything else, is what I believe Ivanhoe is complaining about.