|
08-07-2007, 05:54 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Why is natural selection so threatening to Christianity?
Ever wondered why evolution theory, particularly its component called natural selection, is so threatening to Christianity? it is not necessarily incompatible with the idea of a supreme creator. I recently read an article in the NY Review of Books that addressed this issue. The article is aptly called, "A Religion for Darwinians?" and is written by H. Allen Orr, reviewing a new book called "Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith," by Philip Kitcher. Orr, a professor at Rochester, is an evolutionary biologist, and Kitcher is a professor of the philosophy of science at Columbia. (Orr earlier this year wrote a brilliant and witheringly negative review of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" in the NY Review of Books.)
I thought this quotation from Orr's article was exquisite: "Providentialist religion holds that 'the universe has been created by a Being who has a great design'; importantly, this Being is deeply concerned with the welfare of human beings. A providentialist God is a God to whom one might pray. Kitcher believes that providentialist religion ultimately succumbed to the problem of evil. Though theologians struggled for centuries to reconcile the ubiquity of evil with an omnipotent and caring Creator, the problem was exacerbated immensely—and, Kitcher believes, fatally—by Darwinism, wherein evil assumes the form of mass suffering under natural selection: "'Darwin's account of the history of life greatly enlarges the scale on which suffering takes place. Through millions of years, billions of animals experience vast amounts of pain, supposedly so that, after an enormous number of extinctions of entire species, on the tip of one twig of the evolutionary tree, there may emerge a species with the special properties that make us able to worship the Creator.'" Orr, despite that he has made a specialty of defending the continuing vitality of "spirituality" in the face of scientific advances, agrees with Kitcher. Do you? (By the way, Kitcher's conclusion is that "spirituality" is possible in the face of the undubitable truth of natural selection.) Here is a link to the article though I doubt you can access the whole thing: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arti...ticle_id=20496
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 08-07-2007 at 06:04 PM. |
08-07-2007, 05:58 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Why is intelligent design so threatening to atheists?
|
08-07-2007, 06:02 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
It's not just threatening to atheists, but to all reputable scientists and lovers of truth for truth's sake including academics like Orr and Kitcher who confess at least to hoping for existence of a God and hereafter. But it's only threatening if school boards want to teach it to children masquerading as science, which it clearly is not. Otherwise it's fine.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
08-07-2007, 06:06 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Quote:
2. Some use the claim that God was behind natural selection as a way of countering #1. Both viewpoints are threatening to certain subpopulations. |
|
08-07-2007, 06:12 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
No, people conclude absence of God largely based on the rationale posited in the quotation from Orr's article I set out above. And, by the way, it has been shown systematically that belief in God does not make one more likely to be ethical. Even C.S. Lewis acknowledged this (he conceded, despite his ardent Christianity, that religious people may well be immoral in greater numbers, analogizing religion to a hospital, but for the soul).
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
08-07-2007, 06:18 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
I didn't say any of those things, so who's full of dung?
|
08-07-2007, 06:26 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
What discipline were you trained in? If you're using CS Lewis's statement supporting that "belief in God does not make one more likely to be ethical," you've got a serious endogeneity problem.
__________________
太初有道 |
|
08-07-2007, 06:31 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Why does the "suffering' of speices as they are forced to adapt through natural selection necessarily constitute evil?
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
08-07-2007, 06:47 PM | #9 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
As I understand philosophers traditionally equate evil with suffering and this is particularly so with respect to "the problem of evil." I was more dismissive of the problem of evil when I was younger. But with experience and maturity it has become more of a problem for me, I confess.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
08-07-2007, 06:54 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|