Re: [asa] on science and meta-science

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Tue Nov 10 2009 - 18:16:45 EST


Please get your historical record straight and stop making false statements about D's religious duplicity . Your history needs broadening out.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: dfsiemensjr ;
  Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] on science and meta-science

  "David Livingstone showed that a majority of evangelicals had no problem with evolution as Darwin taught it. It was liberals like Spencer who remade it." - Dave. S.

  Herbert Spencer was speaking about 'evolution' *before* Darwin published his 'On the the Struggle for Life." E.g. Social Statics (1851). Let's have the historical record straight, Dave before we ascribe all things 'evolutionary' to Darwin. Christians from then until now (e.g. Pope Benedict XVI's first public address, which opposed a certain 'evolutionary' view) have had problems with 'aspects' (forgive me Herman Dooyeweerd) of Darwin's theory/theories, evangelicals included. Darwin's quite obvious duplicity about religion and the implications of his theory is noteworthy also. We shouldn't pretend this is not so.

  From: dfsiemensjr <>
  Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 1:38:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] on science and meta-science

  You're right. However, thinking of things in 19th C England, with Paley's argument broadly held, Darwin's approach was freeing for agnostics. There could be patterns without supernatural involvement. This was not the universal conclusion, of course. David Livingstone showed that a majority of evangelicals had no problem with evolution as Darwin taught it. It was liberals like Spencer who remade it.
  Dave (ASA)

  On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:22:50 -0500 Schwarzwald <> writes:
    Heya Dave,

    Not at all. I'm simply sussing out what "an intellectually fulfilled atheist" can or must mean, and denying that Darwin really offered all that much towards such an achievement. Precisely because, if being intellectually fulfilled means a personal sense of satisfaction or being at ease, it can be had (and often is had) on the cheap. I'm certainly not denying that a self-described atheist can feel satisfied, or have intellectual or professional accomplishment. Indeed, if anything I'm arguing in the opposite direction here.

    Now, you're apparently telling me that, yes, what makes an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" is a feeling of personal satisfaction at one's conclusions. And that apparent or assumed consistency, while it can help with that feeling, isn't required to achieve it. If I have you right, then I happen to agree with your estimation of being "intellectually fulfilled". Hopefully you can in turn see why I doubt Darwin has made a special contribution to such a state.

    [Please note that I did not compare atheists with theists unfavorably here. In fact, that comparison isn't my immediate interest. It's this claim that Darwin did something special, and that previously atheists could not feel intellectually fulfilled, but now - thanks to Darwin! - they can. I know this is a popular phrase, one that many tend to agree with almost reflexively (in part because it seems either obvious, or if not that, unimportant). I just don't share the same reaction.]

    On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM, dfsiemensjr <> wrote:

      I fear you are thinking that, if you re not satisfied, no one can be satisfied. However, a materialist can be satisfied with "that's just the way nature is" as well as the Christian's "God made and sustains it so." If the atheist desires, he can call on the multiverse and hold that we just lucked out on the universe where the implicit pattern produced intelligent life. This is not that far from the orthodox declaration that God is ineffable. I hold that it is a matter of grace that I trust in God. I think back on the times a student would say, "You're a philosopher, and you're a Christian?"

      I don't know enough about raelians and discordians to comment on them or the possibility that they could have a consistent set of beliefs. However it is possible to encounter a solipsist, but not to communicate with him. Just as you do not communicate with something you know to be imaginary, a solipsist would not communicate with you. I figure that he would eat "imaginary" food because it make him feel better.

      I should comment that, while consistency is required for a rational system, it is not required of all human beings. YECs hold that the Word of God and the works of God do not match very well. The older gap theory did a little better. But there is a list of evidential arguments that should no longer be used, though I have not seen then labelled lies.
      Dave (ASA)

      On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:12:59 -0500 Schwarzwald <> writes:
        Heya all,

        I'm going to focus on what I'd disagree with as far as what's been posted so far, just to throw in some consistent commentary on this subject.

        * I disagree with Ted - strongly disagree - that Darwinism "allowed one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Though that could possibly be to due differing understandings of being 'intellectually fulfilled'. If all it means is "a person can be very intelligent and accomplished and also an atheist", wonderful - but not only do I doubt that Darwin offered much in that regard, but I'd also say that's an incredibly low-hanging fruit, so to speak. In that case one can be an intellectually-fulfilled raelian, discordian, and probably even solipsist.


      Diet Help
      Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.

  The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 10 18:17:20 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 10 2009 - 18:17:20 EST