- Feb 14, 2006
- 512
- 31
Dear Sinister, don't patronize me, I'm probably twice your age, and yes, I have read The Origin of Species, about 2 decades ago. What you have written above as refutation of the Rationalist-Materialist-Atheistic scientific platform is in no way persuasive. For one thing, did you know Charles Darwin was an avowed agnostic, and a white racist? His original theories of survival of the fittest were in fact the science which nazi Germany used to justify it's campaign of extermination of undesirable races. There is certainly no eloquence in a scientific theory in which personal prejudice seeps into interpretations compatible with Nietzche, which is then expounded upon by fanatics like Hitler.
In his later private autobiography, Darwin wrote of this time:
"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." (Charles Darwin: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin with original omissions restored. New York, Norton, 1969. p.85) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion
"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." (Charles Darwin: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin with original omissions restored. New York, Norton, 1969. p.85) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion
Darwin expressed his doubts about the teleological argument which claimed nature as evidence of god :
"With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."
Darwin's Duplicity and Opportunism.
During the five years on the Beagle Darwin was a close companion of Captain Robert FitzRoy. FitzRoy was an opinionated conservative Anglican. It is interesting indeed that on the long voyage young Charles maintained a reputation for being a biblical literalist. Yet as we have seen, after only five months or less off the ship Darwin had written down some of his basic ideas on evolution and his repudiation of the God of the Bible.It is incredible that his thinking could have undergone total transformation from biblical literalism in that short time. No, on board ship he must have acted like an orthodox Christian in order to please his opinionated captain. In the period from 1837 to 1840 Charles Darwin's reputation was rising, promoted especially by Adam Sedgwick who sponsored him in the Royal Society. Yet to Sedgwick evolution was an abomination, so Charles had to keep his chief love absolutely to himself. In one of his notebooks he wrote out a verbal strategy he could use to conceal his belief in evolution. If Sedgwick had guessed what his young protege was thinking, Darwin's career would have suffered a severe setback. Yet he yearned to tell his associates about his theory. It was during this time of great inner stress before 1840 that he began to suffer from severe headaches and stomach trouble. Darwin kept his ideas from general circulation for some years until his reputation in the scientific community was established.
I don't have to show respect for a Humanistic paradigm of agnosticism and racism. The personal philosophies and views of Darwin did seep into his writings, and his teaching. It's undeniable, as he was a pioneer for the Agnostic scientific rationalist view. But even acknowledging that does not impinge the pure science.
But we weren't discussing the pure science. We are discussing the philosophical implications and interpretations of the pure science, which is a very different thing. And in this instance, it is not merely personal views of Darwin, but personal views of those who aggressively espouse the atheistic paradigm in Darwin's name, hiding behind the pure science, which have led to confrontations in courts of law with churches, continuing to the present day. So let's be honest about this shall we?
I never said science is "out to get religion." There you go hiding your atheistic beliefs behind the reality of pure and provable science. I don't even debate if atheistic philosophers and lawmakers ban religion. No one can ever stop religious experience. That is the birthright of every human being. but for you to flagrantly deny that an atheistic-rationalist-humanistic paradigm exists with science as interpretive of the pure facts, you're being intellectually dishonest.
Dear, you realize that psychology departments, literature departments, art departments, philosophy departments, anthropology departments, comparative religion departments, even law and history departments all discuss and debate questions central to a societal belief in God because belief in God and religious social morality have an overwhelming contribution to the historical context of people and the make-up of societies. Stop narrowing my response in an artificial way and contrived way to establish your points.
I never said the math, chemistry, applied physics, and biology departments were the only departments in a University. So, no sir, my claims are not groundless as I sometimes teach comparative religion classes in University. And even in nursing, I have had occasion to listen to lectures where educators who are bedside nurses share experiences of human belief in God which their patients have told them about, and this becomes a part of the nursing curriculum, because it's a part of patient care and direct patient experience. University is about an exchange of ideas in human society, not merely the exclusive purview of science departments. Again, stop hiding immaturely behind science as if it was your personal shield against all the vagaries and intricacies of human experience since the dawn of recorded history...which happen to include beliefs of varied kinds in God.
Friend, nowhere in any post have I made the above comment. You have taken it from someone else, and applied it as a rebuttal to me. Again, another intellectual deceit. I have no desire to drill anything into anyone's mind. Neither do I accuse you of a great injustice. You have a right to your sincere beliefs. To be honest I went back for several posts and didn't even see this statement, so I have no idea where you got it from. But it's propagandistic to use as a false platform to knock my personal views down with. Please don't misquote me or attribute positions to me which are not mine. How desperate can you be? Thank you.
Last edited:
ffice