Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE Conference

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Mon Oct 01 2007 - 08:38:07 EDT

Is making money a religion?

I ought to be able just to leave it at that with the obvious implications
for evolution, but perhaps some explanation is needed. Of course making
money is not a religion for many people: It's simply a way of p[roviding
for the necessities of life while they pursue what they see as more
important & lasting concerns. But equally of course, making money (or
getting rich, or becoming wealthy, or however you want to phrase it) can be
a religion & is for some people in the sense that it's their "ultimate
concern," &/or what they trust in most deeply, &/or gives meaning to their
lives, &c. Whether or not something is "a religion" in these senses isn't
determined by whether or not it's an "organized religion." You don't have
to wear a gold dollar sign around your neck (as Ayn Rand used to do) or bow
down before a pile of cash, to be a worshipper of money.

Is "Darwinism," in the loose sense of accepting Darwin's theory of
biological evolution, a religion? In the abstract, no. Plenty of people
accept Darwin's basic idea simply as a component of a good scientific
theory. Can it be? Yes, & for some people it is - & not only for those who
(like Chaisson or Haeckel) use explicit "God" or "religion" language in
connection with it.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
Cc: <janmatch@earthlink.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>;
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE
Conference

> On 9/30/07, Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>> >>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 09/30/07 9:34 PM >>>writes:
>>
>> Some creationists believe the lies that Darwinism is a religion and
>> that evolutionary science is the underlying cause of immorality and
>> other evils in the world.
>>
>> Ted comments:
>>
>> The latter, Pim, is very far from truth. We agree on that, although we
>> could
>> probably identify more than a few people who might be examples of using
>> Darwin to *justify*immorality-- as vs having evolution genuinely be the
>
> Sure, Darwinism can be abused by any. But the problem is that some
> religious movements are actually presenting Darwinism as necessarily
> leading to immorality. I should have been more careful in my
> statement. evolutionary science is not the underlying cause, evolution
> is.
>
>
>> *cause* of immorality, which is indeed what the creationists often
>> believe.
>> Rockefeller, e.g., used evolution to justify business practices that I
>> would
>> myself regard as immoral, despite the fact that he was probably a
>> fundamentalist Christian. And Lenin used aspects of Darwin's theory to
>> justify his political views, at times.
>
>> As for the former--Darwinism as religion--this is where we may part
>> company.
>> For quite a few modern thinkers, Darwin is a saint and evolution is at
>> the
>> core of their gospel of atheism. I know we have not agreed about how to
>
> Gospel of atheism... Let me quess, the Dawkin's quote...
>
>> understand Dawkins, e.g., but Dawkins himself does use the term "religion
>> of
>> science," probably without much knowledge of others who have done
>> likewise
>> in the past, and Dawkins himself has said that Darwin made it possible to
>> be
>> an intellectually fulfilled atheist. NASA scientist Eric Chaisson gave a
>
> A true statement. Does that make Darwinism a religion? Or does it make
> the atheist to be possible to be intellectually fullfilled? See also
> http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html Is Science a
> Religion by Dawkins
>
> Dawkins on "religion of science"
> www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/volume25/dawkins_2005.pdf
>
> Understanding Dawkins takes time..
>
>> paper 20 years ago, in which he said exactly that cosmic evolution was
>> his
>> God--I heard the paper at a conference near San Francisco. I find now
>> this
>> statement from him:
>>
>> "Abstract. My conclusions are threefold: The subject of cosmic evolution
>> is
>> my religion. The process of change itself (especially developmental
>> change)
>> is my God. And global ethics and a planetary culture, which cosmic
>> evolution
>> mandates, are the key to the survival of technologically competent life
>> forms, both here on Earth and perhaps elsewhere in the Universe."
>> Source:
>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1988.tb00860.x
>
> Hard to determine how serious this person really is. Of course, that
> still does not make Darwinism a religion.
>
> Note how the title used quotes around "religion"
>
> COSMIC EVOLUTION: THE "RELIGION" OF A SCIENTIST
>
>
>> I think one could multiply these examples with much difficulty.
>
>> There's fire underneath this smoke, Pim, IMO.
>
> I am sorry to hear that you take these issues to be valid. I thought
> that these viewpoints/strawmen were mostly linked to YEC/ID.
>
>> Ted
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 1 08:40:36 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 01 2007 - 08:40:36 EDT