 |
| John Dewey in 1902 |
Interestingly Dewey downplayed the impact of Darwin's ideas on religion, and instead focused on Greek philosophy. He pointed out that for 2,000 years Western philosophy and science had revolved around the concept of "species" or "eidos," a fixed and immutable category that exists in nature. Observing that the individual specimens within a given species all grow and mature into the same archetypical form, the ancient Greeks concluded that each species must have its own specific purpose or aim, ("telos") to conform to the predetermined type. "The idea of eidos, species, a fixed form and final cause, was the central principle of knowledge as well as of nature. Upon it rested the logic of science. Change as change is mere flux and lapse; it insults intelligence. Genuinely to know is to grasp a permanent end that realizes itself through changes, holding them thereby within the metes and bounds of fixed truth. Completely to know is to relate all special forms to their one single end and good: pure contemplative intelligence" (op. cit., p. 34).
This idea of a fixed species having a definite aim and purpose "accounted for the intelligibility of nature and the possibility of science," while at the same time it "gave sanction and worth to the moral and religious endeavors of man. Science was underpinned and morals authorized by one and the same principle, and their mutual agreement was eternally guaranteed" (p. 36).
Dewey went on to say that "the Darwinian principle of natural selection cut straight under this philosophy" (p. 37). If evolution is the result of a purely natural process of selection, "there is no call for a prior intelligent causal force . . . Hostile critics charged Darwin with materialism and with making chance the cause of the universe" (Ibid.).
 |
| Asa Gray |
Dewey pointed out that Darwin's theory had the effect of changing the focus of philosophy. Whereas previously philosophy had been preoccupied with finding the unifying principle of reality, it now focused instead on solving the concrete problems of temporal existence. Dewey, the Pragmatist, saw this as a positive step forward. But it leaves certain disturbing questions unanswered. If the older philosophy "accounted for the intelligibility of nature and the possibility of science" and "gave sanction and worth to the moral and religious endeavors of man," what happens to science, morality and religion under the new way of thinking? Dewey didn't say. But if everything is evolving and there are no fixed categories in nature, how is it possible to make generalizations about anything in either science or morality? There is only the superficial appearance of stability and permanence. Are we not driven to sheer skepticism and nihilism?
At the conclusion of his essay Dewey made an astonishing admission. "But in fact intellectual progress usually occurs through sheer abandonment of questions together with both of the alternatives they assume – an abandonment that results from their decreasing vitality and a change of urgent interest. We do not solve them; we get over them" (p. 41). He then went on to observe: "Doubtless the greatest dissolvent in contemporary thought of old questions, the greatest precipitant of new methods, now intentions, new problems, is the one affected by the scientific revolution that found its climax in the 'Origin of Species'"(Ibid.).
But what were "the old questions"? Wasn't it a worldview, the values and ideals, the social and artistic norms, the hopes and aspirations of traditional Western culture? In short, what was "dissolved" was civilization as we knew it.
You may also be interested in (click on the links):
How Science Committed Suicide
The Case for Moral Absolutes
If evolution is the result of a purely natural process of selection, "there is no call for a prior intelligent causal force . . . Hostile critics charged Darwin with materialism and with making chance the cause of the universe"
ReplyDeleteStawman plus non sequitur.
(plus incidently, Argument from Consequences)
But if everything is evolving and there are no fixed categories in nature, how is it possible to make generalizations about anything in either science or morality?
Non Sequitur.
Thus Darwin's critics, in the main, were correct. Darwin was a materialist who made chance the cause of the universe.
Stawman. Quote the part where Darwin talks about the universe.
Even if you are talking only about the Theory of Evolution, it's still wrong. There's the whole "natural selection" part.
Here's how Jerry Coyne described the impact of Darwinism:
ReplyDelete":Learning about evolution can transform us in a deep way . . .Evolution gives us a true account of our origins, replacing the myths that satisfied us for thousands of years" (Why Evolution Is True, p. xv)
". . . the concept of natural theology, accepted by most educated Westerners before 1859, was vanquished within only a few years by a single five-hundred-page book. On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science" (p. 3)
"Encouraged by the religious belief that humans were the special object of creation, as well as by a natural solipsism that accompanies a self-conscious brain, we resist the evolutionary lesson that, like other animals, we are contingent products of the blind and mindless process of natural selection" (p. 192).
"The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism. Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time." (p. 224).
If it looks like a worldview, if it feels like a worldview, if it tastes like a worldview, indeed it is a worldview!
"Here's how Jerry Coyne described the impact of Darwinism"
DeleteYou ought not judge Darwin and his influence on what Jerry Coyne says.
For some reason this comment wound up in the spam folder -- sorry about that!
DeleteOf course I wouldn't just take Jerry Coyne's word for it -- the blog post was ,after all, based on what Dewey had said. I think that probably most historians of Western thought would recognize the publication of the Origin of Species as an epochal event, although there is probably a chicken-or-the-egg question here. Was Darwin simply reflecting ideas that were already in the air, or did he precipitate something? And then there is always the question of the logical implications of his theory. Darwin himself seemed to be somewhat ambivalent on this matter.
Was Darwin simply reflecting ideas that were already in the air, or did he precipitate something?
DeleteDarwin was not a philospher. He was not a prophet.
He was a scientist.
If Darwin never existed, we would still have the Theory of Evolution. Darwin was the first to cross the line and publish. Had he continued to sit on his manuscript, then another scientist would have beaten him to it.
"And then there is always the question of the logical implications of his theory."
Argument from consequences.
Any such argument does not somehow magically not make Theory of Evolution true.
"The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in god leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore god exists.
The argument takes this form:
1.If A is true then it implies, causes, or creates, B.
2.B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, or undesirable.
3.Therefore, A is false.
This is applied fallaciously in arguing whether something is true or not. Just because something is perceived as having adverse consequences if it is true, does not make it suddenly become untrue - such an idea is just a form of wishful thinking. Conversely, when something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, this perception does not actually make it true. Any argument from consequences is an appeal to emotion.
Example 1
An example is the following quote from Sun Myung Moon:
“”Some zoologists are saying the monkey is ancestor of the human. Then ask the scholar, "Sir, who is your grandfather? Is he a monkey? Then you are a descendent of a monkey." Will he like that? No way. It will turn him off. Would you like a monkey to be your grandfather?
— Sun Myung Moon, Way Of Unification (Part 1)
Of course Rev Moon is grossly (and intentionally) misrepresenting the theory of evolution - none of us are a monkey's grandson. But we are descended from primates and share most of the monkey's biological ancestry. If, like Moon, some of us find this notion troubling, depressing, or ridiculous, this has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
(RationalWiki)
What you said about the argument from consequences is certainly true, and the Theory of Evolution has to be tested on its scientific merits. If it is found to be true, however, then we have to deal with its implications, and that has been difficult.
DeleteDarwin himself was at least partially aware of the philosophical implications of his theory, and he discussed some of them in his correspondence with Asa Gray. And then there were his colleagues Spencer and Huxley, who dared to barge in where angels fear to tread.
Here is an intriguing (on controversial) passage from Darwin:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of the social instincts, but subsequently, in the manner previously indicated, more tendered and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration of the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."
(The Descent of Man, Chapter V)
The passage was quoted in part in the controversial film documentary "Expelled," which attempted to show that Darwin helped inspire the Nazis. The film was met with a storm of protest, partially because some of the participants were apparently unaware of the nature of the project.
So what exactly is Darwin saying here? What are the implications of natural selection? Is he advocating eugenics, or is he backing away from the implications of his own theory? Darwin cited his cousin, Sir Francis Galton, who was an advocate of eugenics. Was he endorsing Galton?
What you said about the argument from consequences is certainly true, and the Theory of Evolution has to be tested on its scientific merits.
DeleteOn the Origin of Species was published on 24 November 1859.
(...looks at watch...)
The year now is 2013.
(...awkward silence...)
If it is found to be true...
On the Origin of Species was published on 24 November 1859.
The year now is 2013.
1859 was a long time ago. A very long time ago.
The passage was quoted in part in the controversial film documentary "Expelled," which attempted to show that Darwin helped inspire the Nazis.
Argument from consequences.
What you said about the argument from consequences is certainly true...
Yes.
Yes it is.
Well done.
It's true even if Expelled makes an argument from consequences.
It's true for you and it's true for me.
It doesn't matter who makes the argument.
The argument is...wrong.
An argument from consequences is a logical fallacy.
If you are doing it, then something is badly wrong with your thinking.
Focus.
As you yourself said..."The Theory of Evolution has to be tested on its scientific merits.
The year is 2013.
(shrug)
What are the implications of natural selection?
Argument from consequences.
Is he advocating eugenics...
Argument from consequences.
Darwin cited his cousin, Sir Francis Galton, who was an advocate of eugenics.
Argument from consequences.
Hello?
What you are doing is intellectually dishonest.
Argument from consequences: It's fallacious thinking.
Evolution gives us a true account of our origins...
ReplyDeleteNothing there about the universe.
No worldview magically appears.
On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science.
Nothing there about the universe.
No worldview magically appears.
we resist the evolutionary lesson that, like other animals, we are contingent products of the blind and mindless process of natural selection.
Nothing there about the universe.
No worldview magically appears.
The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism. Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time.
(...looks at watch...)
If it looks like a worldview...
That word. You keep using it.
Use English as opposed to creating your own private language.
It doesn't work for atheism and it doesn't work for the Theory of Evolution. The internet is not your friend.