The split between creationism and evolutionism has been the cause of massive debate, which has increased in recent years. One side, led by Richard Dawkins, uses the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of God, while the other uses their belief in the existence of God to disprove the theory of evolution.
Speaking as part of the Sydney Ideas lecture series, Philosopher Elliott Sober argues that it is philosophically consistent to believe in both God AND evolution, and examines the religious views of Charles Darwin, and his late-in-life crisis of faith.
Professor Elliott Sober received his PhD in philosophy from Harvard University. He has taught at Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and is currently the Hans Reichenbach Professor and William F. Vilas Research Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In 2008 the American Philosophical Association named him the Prometheus Laureate. His latest book, Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science was published in 2008.
Professor of Philosophy Elliot Sober analyzes Charles Darwin's critique of religion and Christianity. Darwin's stance that an omnipotent God would not have been so evil, Sober argues, was shaped by the amount of cruel suffering the naturalist observed while in the field.
Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.
(born Feb. 12, 1809, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, Eng.died April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent) British naturalist. The grandson of Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood, he studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh and biology at Cambridge. He was recommended as a naturalist on HMS Beagle, which was bound on a long scientific survey expedition to South America and the South Seas (183136). His zoological and geological discoveries on the voyage resulted in numerous important publications and formed the basis of his theories of evolution. Seeing competition between individuals of a single species, he recognized that within a local population the individual bird, for example, with the sharper beak might have a better chance to survive and reproduce and that if such traits were passed on to new generations, they would be predominant in future populations. He saw this natural selection as the mechanism by which advantageous variations were passed on to later generations and less advantageous traits gradually disappeared. He worked on his theory for more than 20 years before publishing it in his famous On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). The book was immediately in great demand, and Darwin's intensely controversial theory was accepted quickly in most scientific circles; most opposition came from religious leaders. Though Darwin's ideas were modified by later developments in genetics and molecular biology, his work remains central to modern evolutionary theory. His many other important works included Variation in Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1868) and The Descent of Man (1871). He was buried in Westminster Abbey. See alsoDarwinism.
Darwin went to a Christian boarding school, and later in life went to Cambridge with the idea of becoming a clergyman. I'm not really sure how much more educated he could have become about on that particular subject.
I can't believe that he missed the American girl's question twice! He didn't 'get' the question. I think she was asking "how would we know the difference between non-intelligent signals and inelligent signals received from space?" In other words, how would they differ... how would we recognize them as distinct?
I think the answer is...we probably wouldn't... not without correspondence. You know, talking back and forth...but that's going to be impossible with the potential of cosmic distances for data communication. One way analysis might yield some probabilities but I tend to think they must look almost the same. It would have to be mathematical but still that requires a primer... and just how to Tx/Rx back and forth...big problem.
lareth... if I'm to understand you.. you are using the caterpillar's short life to show God is cruel?
So... you are proposing that a world with both good and evil should contain caterpillars that live eternally, because they can't choose good or evil?
What a strange argument.
A caterpillar is, as you said, a stupid organism - and I'm sure it, in it's own small way, enjoys it's short life span. The fact that it dies, or only lives shortly, is hardly an argument for or against anything.
Time and extension are not by my side at this very moment.
Sad. He is older than I am. But If he were my student I'd show lots and lots of logical errors in his presentation.
His point in randomness and guided evolution is complete nonsense (in the way of creationists) which makes me wonder if he has paid attention to Dawkins comments on the subject... There is not RANDOM in ADAPTATION. There's also enough proof on matter self-organization to start rambling about a "specific God" with capital Judeo-Christian characters starting the process of evolution in nature.
This kind of flawed logic is kind of terrifying in an academic environment, I think.
I have to agree with those three matters pointed out by "Dogma". This thing of naming "evil" and "unnecessary evil" so easily is sign of very bad reasoning.
Mr. Sober should really come up with a different term for his 'theistic evolution', as what he describes is not evolution whatsoever. His reconciliationist view may well be correct, though there isn't a scintilla of evidence supporting it, but to describe this as evolution is simply erroneous.
Eelkonio, You write about science as if it remains aloof from people and/or human decision-making. Scientific investigation reflects human questions, and these questions ebb and flow over time as does science. The direction of science is not something wholly integral to scientific enquiry, it is as well a socially constructed path and that means taking views from people, some of whom may get moral guidance from religion, and some not.
This idea that science is a completely objective enterprise quite detached from politics however is a lasting myth. Each and every day in law courts around the world different scientists offer different interpretations for the prosection and for the defence, so the idea that science in anyway offers a uniformity beyond debate is another myth. For sure science is a method that enables the realisation of deeper truths but it is one of several modes of knowledge and science has its weaknesses like other forms of knowledge generation. You sound evangelical about science and while I think science as a humanly constructed method you could also do well to dwell on the idea that:
1. science is one of trillions of artifacts, products, processes and practices that humans have created and designed. Dawkins and Dennett freely lecture that humans are the only/first intelligent designers on the tree of life. Science, art, music, technology, dance, writing, etc are all manifestations of this human dimension of culture.
2. Science can be considered a material reverance of God's creation. Don't forget that Einstein referred to "the cosmic religious feeling" (his words not mine) and this takes science as the material reverance of the Universe (and for people of faith, this would be God's creation).
For my own part I find science and religion quite different, but not detached. I certainly don't find anything inherent in science that undermines religion and to assert there is shows a shallow reading of not just science, but religion, anthropology, and culture as a system of motion quite different (again, not detached) from nature. I am against intelligent design because that approach finds ignorance in God and I'm firmly with Kenneth R. Miller in how he debunks intelligent design, and yet he is a person of faith, a Professor of Biology of such standing that he was the lead witness for the plaintiff in the Kitzmiller trial on evolution/intelligent design. Not a witness but the lead witness on evolution at this high profile trial.
So the idea that religion and science are different in how they try to explain and make sense of the world around us is something I adhere to, but they are not detached with their obvious common denominator humankind. This means they are both going to be characterised by politics, bias, power relations, dogma, stubbornness and insecurity. I don't believe in accommodationism for the blind sake of consilience but because I think it's the truth.
This Gods issue makes in fact a lot of people loose time with non-core issues.
We have enough evidence in the real VISIBLE World that evolution played and is playing a role, but not all existing beings are a result of that.
Then ON TOP of these two or three theoretical approaches, we have to create space for the fact that we are not considering the INVISIBLE beings around us, which have not been taken into account by Darwinn or other so called Pros, and which maybe are playing an important role in our evolution.
These approaches reffered by Elliot didnt exist in old times, before Christianity and Allah.
Newton came, Darwing came, and now we have to move forward.
Gravity affect us, but doesnt affect other beings around us. Of course I am NOT reffering to birds.
Elliot Sober is a great speaker, and is not a dogmatic guy, I could say he is a flexible guyb and with good reasoning. But what if he would be faced with one almost invisible blue jellyfish colored snake and two small aliens? He would be in shock of course, and then he would have to go back to basics and reverse the engineering of his thoughts. Yes? In fact, being faced with gravity defying and almost invisible beings would be an hard issue to be faced with.
Who created the earth and the universe should be not the issue right now.
The issue is putting forces to understand our EARTH and from there jump into the Universe.
For example the simple subjects known by all of us such as sea evaporation, high and low pressures, and cloud formation are not at all, easy matters to be left out of the current discussions.
Remember and keep yourselfs alert. An OWL can see 100 times better than us in the night time. We cant.. And can a dog can be barking to noWhere? during the night time without a reason?
Of course the dogs bark during night time ..because they have seen something.
Thank you for your time.
It's amusing seeing people try to convince others that guy is correct or not, or that their beliefs are better than another.
The concept of good and evil was created by us. Too many people forget we use to have a lot of time on our hands to dream up all sorts of things. Take all the thousands of religions. All the popular ones that have stood the test of time generally have thousands of years of trail and error, and story development to stand up against any opposition. I know if I could come up with a way to get people be nicer to each other, I'd sure try to propagate it. And if I could explain some of the mysteries of the world at the same time, well even better. Sounds like a best seller to me....
I'm still a bit surprised that there are humans who value nature in categories of good and evil. Dogma's No2 hits the point with calling it primitve anthropomorphizing.
Nature has no morals as such. It knows usefulness or or uselessness.
A survival strategy functions well for an individual and its group, or it doesn't, if a behaviour doesn't work on long terms, it's wrong and dies out.