সড়কপথে অক্সফোর্ড থেকে ঢাকা (হার্ডকভার) পিডিএফ ডাউনলোড করুন

smart90

** spoiler alert ** MY NOTES ON BOOK: Ruse’s book details the history of the enlightenment, especially concerning the advancement of ideas concerning evolution and its relation to Christianity. He makes a distinction between “evolutionism” as a faith and “the theory of evolution” as a science. He also points out the motives for millenialists (who believe Christ’s return is imminent vs. post-millenialists who argue that there will be something like a heaven on Earth (and thus, believe in the progress of man). ***On p29, he describes how the belief in evolutionism long preceded the actual science behind evolution. In other words, there was a progression of already having lost one’s faith and looking for a credible substitute long before a real theory of evolution existed. In other words, the idea behind the theory was a means to an end for atheists and agnostics. ***On p34, Ruse makes clear that evolution started out as bad science and was not even considered by real scientists (it was more like phrenology or mesmerism, no empirical support). ***On p48, it discusses Robert Chambers’ work “Vestiges”, which offered not just a story on biological evolution, but a historical narrative of the entire universe. It was very ideologically motivated as a progressive interpretation of the world. In other words, it was materialistic and its purpose was to use knowledge of the physical world to make the world better over time. In “Vestiges” he argued for spontaneous generation and the power of the fossil record. Although he was associated with a church, he really wanted to conquer the beliefs of the church in the name of materialistic progress. ***Ruse points out some of the contradictions of the bible that were used to warrant a literary and historical analysis instead of treating it as inspired. E.g., two stories of creation – Adam and Eve created together vs. Eve coming from Adam’s rib; Deuteronomy – 2 accounts of Moses fasting on the Mount, in Exodus only one; God told Balaam to go with the visitors and then God was angry precisely because he went. ; Manasseh used enchantments and summoned spirits and wizards, but then he repented and was forgiven; why then does God keep punishing people later because of Manasseh’s sins? ; Gospels: was it four thousand people fed with seven loaves or five thousand with five loaves; did Simon of Cyrene carry the Cross, or did Jesus carry it?; Did Judas hang himself (Matthew) or fall headlong with his bowels gushing out (Acts)? ***On p85 he explains that because of the cultural environment at the time, when Origin of Species came out it became fashionable to accept and believe it. In fact, for many people, belief in evolution became an overnight conversion experience. *** One of the big objections to natural selection as a means to creating new species (during Darwin’s lifetime) was from physicists who argued that the Earth was not old enough to allow such changes to occur via that mechanism. Even though they already believed in millions of years, they did not believe in the billions of years necessary to make evolution happen. That came later with research on radioactive decay and the age of the earth. *** Darwin did little work to promote his new theory, but Thomas Huxley did. Huxley turned a basic scientific theory into a worldview designed to help answer and deal with some of the hardships and decisions in the modern world. Huxley helped turn the theory of evolution into a driving force to update the education system to match the new industrialized world. Onward and upward was his calling card, and evolution was the means to convince others of his methods. He made evolution into a popular science, which also contributed its growth into a social tool (social Darwinism). *** On p121 it talks about the struggle between true science and “evolutionism” as an ideology: “Tyndall stressed above all the need to be objective and to keep personal opinions and motives and desires out of science. “It is against the objective rendering of the emotions – this thrusting into the region of fact and positive knowledge of conceptions essentially ideal and poetic – that science … wages war.” And here precisely is where evolutionism, including its social Darwinian element, failed. Indeed, it did not even attempt to compete, because it had other goals: to promote a world picture, an ideology of progress. An ideology, to be sure. But would the term “religion” also be appropriate? Considering the nature of the beast, it truly seems so. The concept of a religion is notoriously hard to define, but one thinks in terms of a world picture, providing origins, a place (probably a special place) for humans, a guide to action, a meaning to life. There are other prominent features of many religions, such as belief in a deity and a formalized and recognized priesthood, but these features are not absolutely essential to the definition. Buddhists (and many Unitarians) would probably flunk the God question, and Quakers (by explicit design) have no clergy. Rather than getting too flustered by counterexamples, let us allow the oxymoron “secular religion” and cast our question in these terms. And the answer does seem positive.” P121-122. *** “To use a phrase invented by Thomas Henry Huxley’s biologist grandson, Julian Huxley, the evolutionists were truly in the business of providing a “religion without revelation” – and like all fanatics they were intolerant of rivals.”p128. *** Ruse details the shift in the church over time making it more “science friendly”. In 1861 a major criticism on the history of the Bible was endorsed by many clergy.” As the century drew on, theologically as well as legally, notions like substitutionary atonement and eternal punishment came increasingly under attack. The emphasis shifted from Easter to Christmas, from Christ as a sacrificial lamb to the infant Jesus as the embodiment of peace on earth, good will toward men – from atonement to incarnation. It seemed ethically distasteful that God should have to suffer for our sins, and contrary to his goodness that even the worst of sinners should suffer forever. As ideas like these declined in significance, so did the urge to tie faith tightly to a holy text. “ p139 *** With the founding of the journal “Evolution” in the 1940s there grew a subset of scientists who were determined not to let any kind of ideological evolution into their scientific treatises and studies. Dobzhansky and Mayr were two such scientists, and although they had many progressionist beliefs, they made sure to keep it out of their scientific writings. Instead, they began to play the game of being “culture free” and publish their value-free work in their scientific journals, and then write separate books for the popular public concerning the progressive policies/beliefs they endorsed. *** Ruse admits half-heartedly some of the existing problems with evolution: “Not that all of the evolutionist’s problems have been solved, or are even close to being solved. The problem of the origin of life has always been a major headache for evolutionists.”p200 *** “The real issue is whether some evolutionists today use the supposed progressiveness of evolutionary theory to promote social and ethical programs. And indeed they do.” P212. “In this sense, evolutionary biology – Darwinian evolutionary biology – continues to function as a kind of secular religion. It offers a story of origins. It provides a privileged place at the top for humans. It exhorts humans to action, on the basis of evolutionary principles. It opposes other solutions to questions of social behavior and morality. And it points to a brighter future if all is done as it should be done, in accordance with evolutionary theory.”p213. *** According to the ruling in Arkansas concerning intelligent design as a science, in order for something to be considered a science the judge said it had to be: “1. It is guided by natural law; 2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3. It is testable against the empirical world; 4. Its conclusions are tentative, that is, are not necessarily the final world, and; 5. It is falsifiable.” P248. *** On arguments against using methodological naturalism as the only way to know truth: “Plantinga goes so far as to argue that naturalism is self-defeating even as a strategy for approaching knowledge, for it makes impossible any genuine knowledge at all. If naturalism is true, then Darwinism is plausible – in fact, it is the best game in town. But Darwinism is not interested in our getting to the truth about reality; it is concerned only with survival and reproduction. And as a reproductive strategy, believing that this world is all there is might be advantageous. Advantageous, but not necessarily true. Conversely, believing in a Christian God might be advantageous, but it also might not be true – just an epiphenomenon of selfish genes. Naturalism leaves us with no way to know, one way or another, the truth about reality, in this world or in worlds beyond. A belief in the power of natural selection leads logically to acceptance of a perpetual state of deception.”p258 *** A poem by Miller Williams “In the sixteenth century Nicholas Copernicus told us the earth was a ball and, what was worse, was not the center of the universe. “Well and so,” we wanted to know, “where does that leave us in the scheme of things?” Wherever it left us, we were just about learning to live with it, when three centuries later Charles Darwin grabbed our attention with the news that we were cousins to the kangaroos. “And so,” we wanted to know, “where does that leave us in the scheme of things?” p263. *** Ruse’s book is about the crisis of faith that took place during the Enlightenment and the role evolution had in that crisis. The crisis certainly did not begin with evolution, but rather with questions concerning where religious truth came from. If people from other cultures believed different and had different holy books, how could revealed religions be compared? Also, changes in culture with the populations of places like England becoming urban instead of rural changed relations with the church and organized religion. Reason and progress became the center of many people’s worldviews, and evolutionism fit perfectly with that. *** “By the beginning of the twentieth century evolutionism and creationism were competing for space in the hearts and minds of regular folk. It was not a science-versus-religion conflict but a religion-versus-religion conflict – always the bitterest kind. Darwinians did not have to become secular theologians, but many did. Evolution did not necessarily entail evolutionism, but many evolutionists made the move. Likewise a Christian did not have to become a creationist (or anti-Darwinian), but many did. Creation did not necessarily entail creationism, but many creationists made the move.”p266-267. *** “Scientists are among the minority of intellectuals who are almost universally optimistic. … Scientists buck the trend because (social constructivism notwithstanding) science is the one area of human experience that is unambiguously progressive. First Mendelian factors, next the classical theory of the gene, and then the double helix. Who would deny that, epistemologically, we have made progress? Unless you believe in scientific progress, you are going to flop as a scientist. You have got to push on and make advances, even when things seem darkest. Science stoppers are for theologians and philosophers, not for scientists.”p286-287.

2022-10-26 05:36