I would assert that the notion of "just their physical bodies" is simply a statement of materialism or physicalism which denies dualism. You would agree also. However I think it behoves us to look at the roots of this weltanschauung (all-emcompasing worldview) which takes us back 2400 years to ancient Greece. Although Darwinism is a far more familiar theory than Epicurean materialism, it is clear that Epicurus was the progenitor, in every sense, of Darwinism. Epicurus provided an approach to the study of nature-a paradigm as the historian of science - Thomas Kuhn called it - the systematic and purposeful exclusion of the divine from nature, not only in regards to the creation, but also in regard to divine control of, and intervention in, nature. The secularization culminated in Darwinism because it was with Darwin that materialism, which had been slowly but surely permeating and re-forming the predessor Christian culture, finally reached and devoured God the creator and the immortal soul, leaving in its wake a completely Godless, soulless universe.
Darwinists all too often hold to materialist principles even when their own science turns up startling evidence questioning those very materialist principles. This refusal to see what is before them is a priori, evidence of their own making, is what will allow intelligent design theorists question whether there is something else motivating the materialist scientists with whom they debate, something that makes them resist them mounting scientific evidence for a designer.
Epicurus was motivated to remain a steadfast materialist specifically with the goal in mind of driving the divine from the universe. A godless, soulless universe is one without judgements, without peril, one in which rather than our every thought and movement being watched by an omniscient diety whose claims for absolute justice are unremitting, we instead, is free of a brooding, unblinking divine eye. Epicurus' goal was to close that eye. That Darwin's evolutionary arguements are novel is a notion that is far from the truth. Modern evolutionary theory is not modern in the least. It is found full-blown the the first century B.C. in the Roman Epicurean poet-philosopher Lucretius and its rise was assured with the victory of materialism in the seventeenth century. Darwin is not the beginning of evolutionary theory but rather, the culmination. There is a full cosmological framework which Darwinism presupposes, and those presuppositions lead straight to the door of Epicurus.
Briefly, Epicurus believed that "freedom from disturbances" and "secure conviction" was the goal to reach for and defines his whole system. Ataraxia, freedom from disturbances" was the Epicurean goal of science. He deplored the notion of meterology (disturbances of the heavenly bodies, lightning, thunder, stars, comets, and even the gods were the greatest sources of those disturbances, and the second cause of those disturbances was concern of the afterlife. He sought to rid the universe of these disturbances. He did this by teaching that "everything was made up of atomos (a-tomos=not divisible) which could not be divided beyond these atomos. All matter, even the make up of the gods, were made of those same atomes. By making this assertion he simply stated he believed in materialism. It was a short walk from there to redefine gods, though immortal(in Greek mythology), were made of the same thing as everything else in the universe, thus removing fear of the divine, and thus the afterlife. He then asserted that everything which comes to be, is by random chance of those atomos, and asserted the philosophical principle that "nothing comes to be from nothing" affirming the Principle of Causality. This allowed Epicurus to assert that the universe did not exist ex nihlo but rather affired the eternality of the universe. With this proviso, Epicurus did away with the Creator of the universe. The shift of the eternality of the divine to the eternality of the universe fit well withing the paradign of Epicurus, and subsequently, Darwin. To put it another way, the faith in the existinence of eternal atoms defines both nature and science as essentially materialism. These eternal atomos make a creator God unnecessary. Epicurus essentially stated that the choice of worldview was between materialism and mythology. For Epicurus, the gods were rendered harmless, because they were part of nature, made of atoms, just like everything and everyone else in the universe. He referred to the gods as blessed animals (zoon aphtharton kai makarion) He classified them as animals because as indestructibility was the result of their being part of nature. If otherwise, the universe would not be reducible to atomos and the void.
So here is the seedstock of Darwinism - God does not exist as omnipotent - materialism is all that there is - the random movement of atoms come together by chance to produce animals, plants, gods, rocks,..not the creation of a designer creator God. There is nothing beyond death - just random momvement of atomos, thus releasing the "disturbances" of concerns of the afterlife.
Most people equate Epicureanism with hedonism, but Epicurus was an ascetic, saying "the greatest pleasure is the absence of pain", futher stating that this pleasure is at its zenith eating barley cake and water. However, regarding sexuality Epicurus stated that it was the result of the unnatural desire of ther body for unlimited pleasure. But,there were no intrinsically evil acts. He said, no pleasure is bad in itself. Because nothing is evil in and of itself he said 'we must emphasize any pleasure'. Nature has no 'intents' of placing a limit, moral or otherwise on itself. "Atomos, themselves, by their random motion, did not impose limits on our actions and desires; such limits and the pain that reinforces them were only the result of chance."
So,(fast forward 2400 years) the true test of the merit of a hypothesis is that it passes the test of nature. Is nature really as Epicurus describes, or does nature simply shoe-horn itself in on an acient theory revived by Darwin, and today conform to the materialism of today. This type of faith in materialism can become bad faith, if, upon examination, it ceases to work. But, a good working hypothesis can be adjusted around the edges without being fatal to the theory. But after probing deeply into nature,..after science contradicts the theory, when we find adherance to a failing theory of evolution, we simply assert that Darvinianism is not 'bad faith'....it is enough to affirm that it is their faith.
My greatest concern is that the 'keepers of the culture' are completely entrenched in buisness, universities, public educaiton, and media. Their efficacy to suppress and ridicule intelligent design and the creator is entrenched and is moral in origin.
Outstanding insights, Texas Songwriter! Thank you ever so much for this excellent discussion of Epicurus' relentless materialism and its Darwinian modern development.
Heaven forfend that there should be divine judgment! This is an idea too scary for human beings to live with. Funny thing is, Epicurus believed in "the gods"; he just maintained that they aren't the least bit interested in human beings, and for them to be involved with humans in any way would disturb their "beatitude." And according to Epicurus, they would wish to avoid this.
Point is, no gods, no "judgment" to worry about. This innovation is a stark departure from Plato's view of divine judgment — Dike — as inescapable for man, who continues to exist even after death and is subject to judgment (and more than likely, punishment) for the manner in which he lived his life.
Of course, if there's no god, there's no basis for "objective" morality. Epicurus' morality is entirely premised on (subjective) sense perception as the touchstone of truth. The report of our senses tells us that we should avoid pain and pursue pleasure. And that, in effect, becomes the "new and improved" moral law.
Epicurus believed that, on the basis of a radical materialism which dispensed with transcendent entities such as the Platonic Ideas or Forms, he could disprove the possibility of the soul's survival after death, and hence the prospect of punishment in the afterlife. He regarded the unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as the primary cause of anxiety among human beings, and anxiety in turn as the source of extreme and irrational desires. The elimination of the fears and corresponding desires would leave people free to pursue the pleasures, both physical and mental, to which they are naturally drawn, and to enjoy the peace of mind that is consequent upon their regularly expected and achieved satisfaction....So it's literally senseless to worry about it! We can't be judged if we are no longer around, i.e., don't exist, post-death. Ta-Da!!! Takes care of that problem!
[Epicurus' "proof" of the non-existence of life after death:] Death, Epicurus insists, is nothing to us, since while we exist, our death is not, and when our death occurs, we do not exist. — David Konstan
Another interesting aspect of Epicurean philosophy is that the soul is reckoned to exist. After all, Epicurus needed something to explain the obvious fact that men are conscious, that they have minds. But Epicurus' "soul" is just a finer material body than the physical body in which it resides. That is, it is also composed of material "atoms"; but they are finer than the atoms that compose the physical body. At death, the soul's atoms scatter, just as the physical atoms do. Strangely (to us), Epicurus physically locates man's soul, the rational mind, in his chest.
The important thing is even the soul is "material." Kinda reminds me of Stephen Pinker's claim that all human moral action is really dictated by chemical processes occurring in the brain....
I guess there's "nothing new under the sun."
TS, you wrote that your greatest concern is that the "keepers of the culture" — who are completely entrenched in business, universities, public education, and media — are Epicurean/Darwinian materialists. You correctly note (IMHO) that their success in ridiculing and suppressing intelligent design and the creator is entrenched and is moral in origin.
Yet with God "gone," man is reduced to the status of a clever animal. With God "gone," man can't even explain himself. The dirty little secret of these "keepers of the culture" is that they detest, not only God, but man himself....
But of course, we can't call these people "immoral" because they don't believe in morality.... :^)
Talk about a clash of worldviews, which is at the bottom of the so-called "culture war" — which is definitely coming to a head in our lifetime....
Or so it seems to me. FWIW
Be of good cheer, my friend! God cannot be "erased" because disordered men wish to erase Him.... And last time I checked, He was still in charge....
Thank you so very much for your excellent essay/post, dear brother in Christ!