“
If it's purely political (Darwinism)
, is it still heresy?”
What are you talking about? For openers, what is heresy? My MAC OSX computer dictionary (an Oxford Dictionaries product) defines heresy as “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine.”
Why “especially Christian” is a little difficult for me to fathom since it is the Moslem faith that has seemed more than any other, for the past several centuries, to be inclined to hack off the head of an infidel. But, in any event . . .
This Forum has been harangued incessantly by the Darwinian Mullahs (Scientists and others who claim to speak authoritatively for Science) that Evolution (Darwinism) is a biological theory. That’s true, isn’t it? We’ve been told that Evolution is consequentially a theory about living organisms and how natural selection permits them to adapt to, and thereby survive in, a changing environment. Likewise true, correct? And, most importantly, we’ve been told that Evolution is nowise in competition with Christianity, or any of its related beliefs (such as Creationism), and this for two salient reasons: a.) Neither Christianity, nor Creationism is science, and therefore cannot be a competing theory; b.) Evolution does not, in any event, concern itself with origins, or other religious matters, as does Christianity, so, again the two cannot be considered competitors.
I’ll agree with the Darwinian Mullahs; take them at their word that there are no moral conclusions nor value judgments to be drawn from Darwinism (the Theory of Evolution), and let them deny what they have steadfastly declared for so long, or let them remain locked in the world of their choosing, that there are no moral conclusions nor value judgments to be drawn from the Theory of Evolution.
So, I’ll side with, the Darwinian Mullahs and let them continue to declare their irrelevancy to so much that is distinctly human when they declare that most anything dealing with human nature, but not physically caused is irrelevant, and is to be picked up by “philosophy or theology.” According to the Mullahs, Science, particularly the Theory of Evolution, is not subject to metaphysical conclusions or philosophical value judgments, and in fact, philosophical ruminations have no place in Science whatsoever.
Accordingly then, “Darwinism,” indeed all of what me might call Science, can’t possibly be involved in heresy because, not being involved in spiritual matters or anything having to do with value judgments, it has nothing to say to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, or to any religion.
But, then along comes a fellow like Richard Dawkins, proclaiming opinions which seem profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted, claiming there are visible implications for moral judgments and proclaiming the existence of value criteria in the Theory of Evolution, even if what he and some of his colleagues have to say is a human horror.
In promoting his book The God Delusion, Dawkins has said things like, “The word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, and that is true of religion. It is remarkably widely believed, it’s as though almost all of the population or a substantial proportion of the population believed that they had been abducted by aliens in flying saucers. You’d call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.”
When Dawkins was quoted as describing God as a “misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully,” his response was, “That seems fair enough to me, yes.” If there is any question that Dawkins was speaking as a scientist, the following should put the question to rest: In a 30 September, 2006, 90-minute debate arranged by TIME, Dawkins was asked, “. . . if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?” Dawkins’ response, “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no” (emphasis mine).
Dawkins is not alone. There are many noted Scientists of renown who agree. Among them, Steven Weinberg, Nobel prize-winner from the University of Texas at Austin, in remarks at the Freedom From Religion Association, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that. If science helps bring about the end of religion,” he concluded, “it would be the most important contribution science could make” (emphasis mine).
Tufts philosopher and professor of evolutionary biology and cognitive science, Daniel Dennett, in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, delivers the opinion that Darwinian evolution is “a universal acid” that dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs.
William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, in a 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address entitled Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life, saw fit to deliver a statement that “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.” He then enumerates them; 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
Any number of other prominent scientists have chosen to express similar sentiments and, off those sentiments, to declare many value judgments, religious pronouncements, cultural conclusions and philosophical opinions. And they ground this all in Science!
Among those who indulge in this behavior we have these worthies: Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Peter Sanger, Michael Tooley, Richard Lewontin, Carl Sagan (now deceased), Marc Hauser, and Victor Stenger. By no means neither is this an exhaustive list.
When that many prominent Scientists intrude into religion, using their science as the instrument to declare that God (any deity) does not exist and that religion is therefore useless, then, yes, I think heresy is the correct term, even if the motivation behind their behavior is the attainment of a political dominance.
My MAC OSX has also seen fit to deliver a more pop brand definition of heresy as well, this being, “opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted.” This definition perfectly fits what I would term “political heresy” and a method of political domination much practiced by 0bamatrons and other Socialist/Democrats, who claim exclusivity on what is to be considered “generally accepted,” and to be used against anyone who dissents in the least from their doctrines, but most particularly against anyone of a Christian or Conservative persuasion.
Thanks for your post.
YHAOS:
"Accordingly then, “Darwinism,” indeed all of what me might call Science, can’t possibly be involved in heresy because, not being involved in spiritual matters or anything having to do with value judgments, it has nothing to say to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, or to any religion."But, then along comes a fellow like Richard Dawkins, proclaiming opinions which seem profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted, claiming there are visible implications for moral judgments and proclaiming the existence of value criteria in the Theory of Evolution, even if what he and some of his colleagues have to say is a human horror."
This appears to be the core of your argument, and the very site of your Big Switcheroo.
The truth of the matter is that natural-science itself is a very limited, restricted enterprise requiring: natural explanations for natural processes.
So, whenever some scientist, be it Dawkins or anybody else expresses their philosophical, metaphysical, ontological or religious opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".
So Dawkins can say whatever he wishes philosophically -- it's just him talking, not science itself.
If Dawkins says:
"The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer.
I think that it is a scientific question.
My answer is no.” [emphasis mine].
Those are opinions to which Dawkins is certainly entitled, but which, by definition, are not scientific.
YHAOS: "Dawkins is not alone.
There are many noted Scientists of renown who agree."
But many other scientists are not atheists, including some of the best known, from Albert Einstein to Max Plank to even (perhaps) Stephen Hawking.
And many scientists throughout history have been self-acknowledged Christians, including this list.
So, your practice of equating science in general, and "Darwinism" in specific with atheism is simply false, and you should stop doing it, FRiend.
Finally, I recently stumbled on a very nice chart, which could apply to most any thread here.
I think we'd all do well to examine it and decide at which levels our own arguments should fall:
