I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong.
You won't, because taken in those terms, Darwinism is precisely what Dawkins and Dennett say it is.
Darwinism is internally consistent and functions tolerably well as the basis for a naturalistic worldview. That it is also functioning as a naturalistic religion when viewed in that capacity is rather beside the point. That its inevitable outcome is nihilism is left more or less as an exercise for the student.
Because they are illogical.
My only objection to the tone of the article (and supposedly, the book it reviews) is that it approaches religion vs. Darwinism in a purely utilitarian light. Darwinism "doesn't work" and Theism supposedly "does." Yet it is precisely this utilitarianism that paves the way for the rejection of G-d by supposing that anything that provides the same "social utility" as G-d could replace Him. Furthermore, I of course reject the notion that the "idea" of G-d developed to fill a social need of any kind.
We have been treated to a number of posts and articles lately assuring us that "religious people" need have no fear of Darwinism because it provides a solid foundation for morality. Excuse me, but what kind of moron thinks that religion consists only of morality? We even had an article posted that chirped happily that religions gradually evolved in response to felt social needs and that therefore chr*stians can all be good Darwinists. Did this nincompoop actually think that anything called "chr*stianity" would survive the rejection of G-d or its reduction to the mere ethical teachings of J*sus? Maybe Thomas Jefferson could do this, but I thought he was dead.
Meanwhile the chorus of "you religious people have nothing to fear because you can keep your morality" has been answered from the religious camp only with thundering, overpowering silence. Are the nervous nellies afraid to tell their atheist colleagues that religion is more than morality, that it involved dogmas about the world, or that it claims to be based, not on philosophical speculation, but on Divine Revelation? Perhaps some of our resident geniuses will assure us that religion can survive the rejection of the notion of revelation because the only thing that really matters is morality.
The whole issue of whether creation, ID evolution, or atheist evolution is "science" is the wrong issue. The issue is what happened, not how things are classified. And if Divine Revelation is an objective historical fact then it cannot be thrown out in the name of a more modern understanding of the natural world. The whole argument between ID Theistic evolutionists and other evolutionists (whether "Theistic" or atheistic) is that while G-d might conceivably be behind everything, this remains pure speculation and belongs in the philosophy classroom. Yet almost every religion insists on being the product of an objective supernatural revelation, not the philosophical speculations of great minds.
What the evolutionists will never admit is that 1)religion is more than morality and 2)religion is/claims to be based on objective supernatural revelation rather than philosophy or a society's evolution to meet utilitarian social needs. If they were to admit either of these then they could no longer claim that "evolution does not contradict religion," since this whole claim is based on equating religion in its entirety with morality and ascribing all religion to philosophical speculation.
Most atheists claim to believe in "freedom of religion," but what they actually believe in is "freedom of speculation," which is not the same thing at all.
See my tag line for this week.
"I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong." ~ wideawake
Would you recognize coherency when you hear it? :)
Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath
http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/1405125381
"I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong." ~ wideawake
Here's a response you may find helpful:
It's not too tough: There is a significant number of people who understand & accept a Darwinian version of evolution whose faith is, nevertheless, undissolved.
Qualifications:
1) Do you need a list of names & publications? It shouldn't be hard for anyone who's at all familiar with work in the science-religion area to compile one.
2) By "Darwinian version of evolution" I mean a scientific theory of evolution in which natural selection plays a major role. If "Darwinism" means a totalizing philosophy of everything then the "triumphant claims" are tautologically true but also uninteresting.
3) I think that Dawkins' statement - or at least the one I recall - was that Darwinism "made it possible for a person to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." That is considerably weaker than the claim that it "creates a truly fulfilled atheism."
Shalom
George Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong." ~ wideawake
Here's another response:
Let's put this in logical form. Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates fulfilled atheism is equivalent to:
All Darwinists become fulfilled atheists.
To disprove this one only needs to find is a single counter-example. I exist. The statement is false. Q.E.D.
Thus, all TEs need to do to have a coherant argument against this is to breath. ~ Rich Blinne - asa@calvin.edu
I have yet to hear a coherent argument from anyone showing that they're right.