Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism'

[Siddhartha]

On November 24, 1859, the first edition of a book that would shake the most deeply established beliefs about life was published in London. What would eventually be known as “The Origin of Species” was the opening shot in a debate that hasn’t ended, even 150 years later.

In a series of books starting in 1976 and in his 2002 TED Talk, biologist Richard Dawkins has explored the implications of Darwin’s work. In “The Selfish Gene,” Dawkins wrote, “Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over 300,000 million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin.”

Watch the TED Talk by Richard Dawkins

Dawkins argues that there is no doubt that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is true and, unlike some other scholars of the subject, says belief in evolution is not compatible with faith in religion. In fact, he argues, science and religion undermine each other.

“I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith,” Dawkins says in his TED Talk.

There’s no room for a God in the world as he sees it, and he believes atheists should be forceful in opposing religion. He acknowledges that it’s an unpopular case to make, particularly in the United States.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\There’s no room for a God in the world as he sees it,\

He sure believes in a very limited world, doesn’t he?

 

[grannymh]

Militant atheism makes the mistake of applying evolution’s philosophy of materialism to the human species.

 

[StAnastasia]

Militant atheism makes the mistake of applying evolution’s philosophy of materialism to the human species.

In part it’s a reaction to militant anti-scientific fundamentalisms. Perhaps the pendulum will once again eventually reach equilibrium.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Militant atheism makes the mistake of applying evolution’s philosophy of materialism to the human species.

In part it’s a reaction to militant anti-scientific fundamentalisms. Perhaps the pendulum will once again eventually reach equilibrium.

Of course, militant atheists react to militant anti-scientific fundamentalisms.

Actually, a form of the philosophy of materialism is the foundation for Darwin’s own approach to nature. Any kind of pendulum regarding scientific methods can only swing in the material realm.

 

[Siddhartha]

Of course, militant atheists react to militant anti-scientific fundamentalisms.

Actually, a form of the philosophy of materialism is the foundation for Darwin’s own approach to nature. Any kind of pendulum regarding scientific methods can only swing in the material realm.

Not really. Darwin didn’t construct his hypothesis of evolution based on a prior materialism. He constructed it based on how powerfully the hypothesis explained the distribution of organisms on earth.

 

[grannymh]

Not really. Darwin didn’t construct his hypothesis of evolution based on a prior materialism. He constructed it based on how powerfully the hypothesis explained the distribution of organisms on earth.

Darwin looked at nature, plants and animals, as consisting solely of matter. This fact made it possible to explain the ancestry of living organism. Matter generates matter through change became his powerful hypothesis.

Whether or not Darwin initially based evolution a priori on materialism is not my point. What I did say was that a form of the philosophy of materialism is the foundation for Darwin’s own approach to nature.

Personally, I find the evolution theory regarding plants and animals fascinating as I am learning about various scientific aspects. It is the human species which poses the problem since human nature is matter and spirit. Atheism can become militant because the basic evolutionary theory that matter comes from matter doesn’t quite work with humans. The very idea that there could be something immaterial in humans goes against the atheist’s stand that there is no room for God in the world.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Not really. Darwin didn’t construct his hypothesis of evolution based on a prior materialism. He constructed it based on how powerfully the hypothesis explained the distribution of organisms on earth.

From what I can remember, he rejected Christianity on the basis that the Bible couldn’t indicate how animals could be so nasty as some bug or other that paralyzes catapillas and eats them alive, or somesuch.

…obviously ignoring the bit in Genesis about “and all life turned evil” before the flood, implying that such could easily occur again. If he’d read his Bible more carefully, he’d probably not have bothered inventing this dogma - although it wouldn’t neccesarily stop him inventing biologically ‘justified’ white supremicism, and racialism as a whole, along with all the other seeds of fascism he self-righteously formulated behind his (admittedly impressive) beard…

 

[StAnastasia]

. If he’d read his Bible more carefully, he’d probably not have bothered inventing this dogma - although it wouldn’t neccesarily stop him inventing biologically ‘justified’ white supremicism, and racialism as a whole, along with all the other seeds of fascism he self-righteously formulated behind his (admittedly impressive) beard…

Gee, this post sets a new record for a moral low point on Catholic Answers. I didn’t think even YECs were capable of idiotic and uncharitable claims like this!

StAnastasia

 

[Dameedna]

…obviously ignoring the bit in Genesis about “and all life turned evil” before the flood

I guess he was paying more attention to the empirical evidence about life on this earth provided today , that he was to a tribal story told around camp fires(never written down and changed over time) created in igornance thousands of years ago, that has since been disproven.

Life didn’t turn evil. It evolved into what is has become.

Volcanos existed before humans.Tsunamis existed before humans. Disease existed before humans.

And self-awareness existed before humans.

Rolls eyes!!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I guess he was paying more attention to the empirical evidence about life on this earth provided today , that he was to a tribal story told around camp fires(never written down and changed over time) created in igornance thousands of years ago, that has since been disproven.

Life didn’t turn evil. It evolved into what is has become.

Volcanos existed before humans.Tsunamis existed before humans. Disease existed before humans.

And self-awareness existed before humans.

Rolls eyes!!

Now this really IS a tirade of dogmas! Got any more statements of scientifically orthodox assumptions?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I guess he was paying more attention to the empirical evidence about life on this earth provided today , that he was to a tribal story told around camp fires(never written down and changed over time) created in igornance thousands of years ago, that has since been disproven.

Life didn’t turn evil. It evolved into what is has become.

Volcanos existed before humans.Tsunamis existed before humans. Disease existed before humans.

And self-awareness existed before humans.

Rolls eyes!!

Guess he was subscribing to the barely evidenced assumptions of anthropologists the world over, more like… although this has no relation to my original statement, y’unnerstan’

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Gee, this post sets a new record for a moral low point on Catholic Answers. I didn’t think even YECs were capable of idiotic and uncharitable claims like this!

StAnastasia

Actually, I think I read it in some devotional biographical stuff about Darwin…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Gee, this post sets a new record for a moral low point on Catholic Answers. I didn’t think even YECs were capable of idiotic and uncharitable claims like this!

StAnastasia

That’s the last time I defend you from being branded a heretic! And if you were able to think outside your assumptions, you may remember even when I’m in a full-on creationist mood I’m unconvinced by the YE bit…

 

[Dameedna]

Now this really IS a tirade of dogmas! Got any more statements of scientifically orthodox assumptions?

Nothing stated is an assumption. But I guess it really depends on how much you care about actual evidence, vs wanting to believe something and ignore any evidence that contradicts it.

Most of this has been known(and yes proven) for quite some time. Dogma? hmm…

 

[StAnastasia]

I guess he was paying more attention to the empirical evidence about life on this earth provided today , that he was to a tribal story told around camp fires(never written down and changed over time) created in igornance thousands of years ago, that has since been disproven. Life didn’t turn evil. It evolved into what is has become.Volcanos existed before humans.Tsunamis existed before humans. Disease existed before humans.And self-awareness existed before humans.Rolls eyes!!

Dameedna, I agree with most of your post,. However, I will take issue with your claim that the Genesis creation story “has since been disproven.” This would only be true if the original intent of the story was to offer a scientific account of the origin of the world. I join popes, bishops, and most educated Catholics in rejecting the claim that Genesis 1-11 offers a literal, scientific account of cosmic origins. Genesis is theologically and symbolically as valid as it ever has been.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

That’s the last time I defend you from being branded a heretic!

Accusations of “heresy” have no meaning for me. I never expected the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[TheAtheist]

Dameedna, I agree with most of your post,. However, I will take issue with your claim that the Genesis creation story “has since been disproven.” This would only be true if the original intent of the story was to offer a scientific account of the origin of the world. I join popes, bishops, and most educated Catholics in rejecting the claim that Genesis 1-11 offers a literal, scientific account of cosmic origins. Genesis is theologically and symbolically as valid as it ever has been.

StAnastasia

Just want to point out something. Fighting off the occasional “sieges” from Biblical literalists, I got rather curious about what those of the Jewish faith interacted with Genesis.

It was to my utter shock and surprise, that if i understand both the archaeological and historical evidence correctly, the “2nd Temple” version of Judaism never actually took the story of Genesis to be literally true. In fact, one could say it wasn’t that important at all - merely a story to symbolically illustrate the power of their God.

I want to clarify this statement utterly though. This isn’t saying there was a disingenious belief in their God. By all means no, the devotional aspect was quite strong. It is saying however that Genesis was not utilized in the manner it is today by some religious folk.

To which i must credit the intelligence of the folks living in 516 BCE.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

that he was to a tribal story told around camp fires(never written down and changed over time) created in igornance thousands of years ago, that has since been disproven.

Dogma based on the assumptive theories of anthropogists, who appear barely capable of understanding contemporary humanity, nevermind those of whom the slightest scraps of evience remain

Life didn’t turn evil. It evolved into what is has become.

Full on Dogma. Although technically speaking, in no way necessarily refuting the original statement!

Volcanos existed before humans.Tsunamis existed before humans. Disease existed before humans.

Again, questionable

And self-awareness existed before humans.

Rolls eyes!!

In what sense?

 

[StAnastasia]

It was to my utter shock and surprise, that if i understand both the archaeological and historical evidence correctly, the “2nd Temple” version of Judaism never actually took the story of Genesis to be literally true. In fact, one could say it wasn’t that important at all - merely a story to symbolically illustrate the power of their God.
… all means no, the devotional aspect was quite strong. It is saying however that Genesis was not utilized in the manner it is today by some religious folk. To which i must credit the intelligence of the folks living in 516 BCE.

TheAtheist, not only was early Jewish interpretation of Genesis carefully nuanced, but so was Catholic exegesis for much of its history. The return to a supposedly “original” literal interpretation of Genesis was a relatively recent phenomenon pushed by Protestant Fundamentalists.

The reason you see so much Young Earth Creationism on this forum (compared to in Catholic churches) is that not a few members are former Protestant Fundamentalists who have converted to an equally Fundamentalist Catholicism, and who have dragged in their woodenly literal interpretation of scripture along with them. It’s not native to Catholicism.

StAnastasia