We can learn from Darwin

[robin hood]

A blind spot in the thinking of an overly institutional, and overly
theological, ideological religion of the past, was its anti-primitive
hypocrisy. Sociologists and others have praised our western religion
for the strong emphasis on a moralism or a self-discipline ethic that
contributed to the emergence of civilization, or a work ethic. Our
barbarian ancestors gave up the shiflteless freedom of their eons as
noble savages, the freedom of hunting and maurauding (and starving).

The religious moral code of the biblical tradition, which northern
Europe got from the south, from the Romans, etc, had many positive
effects, or after effects. But isn't there a sort of integrity that
this tradition left out? I think that there is a kind of integrity in
simple self-knowledge. There is a kind of integrity in the humility of
seeking a self-understanding that goes beyond the shallow righteousness
of naiviete, or a religious ignorance and surface piety.

Darwin has made huge contributions simply in seeking simple honesty
about the origins of organic chemistry. Not his words, of course, but
our biological inheritance is crucial to truly honest
self-understanding. (Plus, it forms an important part of medical
knowledge.)

[d***@aol.com]

robin hood wrote:

. There is a kind of integrity in the humility of

Post by robin hood
seeking a self-understanding that goes beyond the shallow righteousness
of naiviete, or a religious ignorance and surface piety.
Darwin has made huge contributions simply in seeking simple honesty
about the origins of organic chemistry. Not his words, of course, but
our biological inheritance is crucial to truly honest
self-understanding. (Plus, it forms an important part of medical
knowledge.)

It all depends, of course, on what you do with Darwin. If you are
proposing a system of taxonomy or trying to extract useful medical
information, then there isn't a problem. If you, on the other hand are
undercutting the very ethical foundations of the civilization that
provided the philosophical liberty and license which permitted such
inquiry in the first place; you are biting the hand that feeds you.
Nature provides no ethical imperative, religion does. If you stop at
biology, Darwin is fine. If you use him as a platform for attacking
(especially Christianity, since it is not politically correct to attack
other religions {you may start a massive riot} ) religion you are on
much shakier ground.

Daryl

[Simple Simon]

Post by robin hood
. There is a kind of integrity in the humility of

Post by robin hood
seeking a self-understanding that goes beyond the shallow righteousness
of naiviete, or a religious ignorance and surface piety.
Darwin has made huge contributions simply in seeking simple honesty
about the origins of organic chemistry. Not his words, of course, but
our biological inheritance is crucial to truly honest
self-understanding. (Plus, it forms an important part of medical
knowledge.)

It all depends, of course, on what you do with Darwin. If you are
proposing a system of taxonomy or trying to extract useful medical
information, then there isn't a problem. If you, on the other hand are
undercutting the very ethical foundations of the civilization that
provided the philosophical liberty and license which permitted such
inquiry in the first place; you are biting the hand that feeds you.

Galileo Galilei might rightfully have a less magnanimus perspective
on that "philosophical liberty and license" claim you make.

You seem to be saying that science is just fine and dandy, so long as
it keeps its place and serves the status quo. But science leads to
insight. Insight cannot rightfully be constrained by, or edited to
conform to, the ignorance du jour.

Perhaps you're not saying that at all, however, so I'll stop here and
give you a chance to say one way or the other.

Post by robin hood
Nature provides no ethical imperative, religion does. If you stop at
biology, Darwin is fine. If you use him as a platform for attacking
(especially Christianity, since it is not politically correct to attack
other religions {you may start a massive riot} ) religion you are on
much shakier ground.

According to historical lore, Christianity already did the massive
riot thing when it burned the library of Alexandria to the ground and
murdered Hypatia (a prominant, uppity female scholar associated with
the library). There are many other historical examples. I hope
those days are behind us, but only time will tell for sure.

One does science with Darwin. The scientific findings do have some
implications for a literal reading of Genesis which makes some of my
Christian breathern very, very uncomfortable. That is their problem.

I was a scientist (engineer, actually) long before I was a Christian.
I completely believe in the virgin birth of our Lord, even though the
science of biology would suggest it is impossible. <Shrug>. I feel
no need to reconcile these two things. They're separate. On the
other hand, at this point in time biology -- when combined with
geology, astronomy, cosmology -- seems to be on the right path as far
as illuminating the physical aspect of our origins.

I've always been delighted that "Let there be Light!" and the Big
Bang could easily be describing the very same event.
--
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and
judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and
whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be
pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
- James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 47

---

[On the Library of Alexandria, see
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
Saying that Christians burned it is a bit misleading.
--clh]

[robin hood]

Post by robin hood
. There is a kind of integrity in the humility of

Post by robin hood
seeking a self-understanding that goes beyond the shallow righteousness
of naiviete, or a religious ignorance and surface piety.
Darwin has made huge contributions simply in seeking simple honesty
about the origins of organic chemistry. Not his words, of course, but
our biological inheritance is crucial to truly honest
self-understanding. (Plus, it forms an important part of medical
knowledge.)

It all depends, of course, on what you do with Darwin. If you are
proposing a system of taxonomy or trying to extract useful medical
information, then there isn't a problem. If you, on the other hand are
undercutting the very ethical foundations of the civilization that
provided the philosophical liberty and license which permitted such
inquiry in the first place; you are biting the hand that feeds you.
Nature provides no ethical imperative, religion does. If you stop at
biology, Darwin is fine. If you use him as a platform for attacking
(especially Christianity, since it is not politically correct to attack
other religions {you may start a massive riot} ) religion you are on
much shakier ground.
Daryl

I think that religion needs to return to ethics and morality and
justice, or it is sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. Martin Luther
King challenged Christians to embrace, once again, such fervor (like
the early Christians). Yet science is probably guilty at times of
ejecting morality. It is claimed, in some of Darwin's discussion, that
such a view crept in.
Rather, as author Pat Shipman, Allan Chase, Riane Eisler, and others
have proven, sccientific racism is a very pernicious danger, if not
exposed.

Dr. King warned that the silence or apathy of good people can be more
dangerous than the evil deeds of bad people. Now a days, they call it
being an enabler. You become guilty by permitting it (looking the other
way). But morality and justice and ethics are surely not the only
righteousness or "Civilization" that the padres brought us (the
missionaries, whether from Rome, Spain, England .... or Boston.)

Isn't there a sort of "righteousness" in the humble self-knowledge of
realizing you are not God's chosen race? Homo sapien (supposedly the
wise ones, the enlightened race.) Isn't there some kind of almost
"righteousness" just in humility, knowing you are of the dust, and
related to the other lowly (yet beautiful) creation? Socrates declared
"I know nothing" yet he was probably wiser than the fearful elitists
who killed him.

A white man once wrote:

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.