Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Well, what quote of yours do you want to have on your gravestone?!
I think this paragraph, the introduction to a book review (for which I was never paid) in a Canadian newspaper some 10 or so years ago, has received more attention and more repetition (especially on the Internet) than anything else I have ever written. More even than my claim that morality is an illusion put in place by the genes to make us social animals. No matter that I qualified it then and have qualified it before and ever since. "Ruse recants! Evolution is a religion! Read all about it!" Or more accurately, don't read all about it, because then you might find that that is not quite all that I had to say.
Is evolution, Darwinian evolution in particular, a religion? To sound like the philosopher that I am, it all depends on what you mean by "religion." It is "Intro to Philosophy of Religion," Lecture 1 material. Religion is not something like a right-angled triangle. Either you have a right angle or you don't, and that is the end of the matter. Religion calls for what we in the trade call a "polythetic" definition. There is no one feature that is necessary, but having several is sufficient. Belief in God? Very important, but what about the Unitarians or the Buddhists? Having a priesthood? Also important, but what about the Quakers? Having rituals or ceremonies? Quakers again. And so on.
What this means is that some things are clearly religions, some not and some on the border. Roman Catholicism has a priesthood, a moral code, a belief in God and much more. It is paradigmatically a religion. (This does not mean that it is better, but that it is clear cut.) Being an undergraduate at Florida State University is not joining a religion, even though on Saturdays in the fall at the football stadium one might wonder. What about the Freemasons? Well, really, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
So, what about Darwinism? I don't think believing that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection (his version or today's version) commits you to religious belief. I think that if, as I myself would, you extend the scope of the theory to an understanding of knowledge acquisition and justification and the same for morality -- evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary ethics -- then it can act as a religion substitute or alternative. It gives you a world picture that some people, starting with me, find entirely satisfying. I can't answer all of the questions -- Why is there something rather than nothing? How does the conscious mind arise from the physical brain? Is there a purpose to it all? -- but I am not sure that anyone can answer these questions in a satisfactory manner and I certainly don't go to bed worrying about them.
So, if someone like Richard Dawkins indignantly protests that his passion about these sorts of things -- the passion that drives the "God Delusion" -- should not be taken as a religious passion, I am happy to accept that. I do nevertheless think that often Dawkins and company show the sociological characteristics of the religious. This comes across particularly in what Freud calls the narcissism of small differences, the hatred of those who are close to them but not quite close enough. Just as evangelicals can differ bitterly over the true meaning of the host, so the New Atheists loathe people like me who (like them) have no religious belief but who think that science as such does not refute religion.
Having conceded this, I do also think that there are and have been Darwinians who have made something of a religion -- call it a secular religion, if you like -- out of their science. At the time of Darwin himself, his great defender Thomas Henry Huxley (grandfather of the novelist Aldous Huxley) set out consciously to make of Darwinism a phenomenon that not only substituted for religion but that gave the same emotional satisfactions of religion. Like those who were to follow, Huxley did not see the world (as would I and Dawkins) as blind and meaningless, but rather as something with a direction -- a direction upwards as evolution led progressively to our species. As the Christian sees the world made for humans, so Huxley saw the world preparing for humans, and as the Christian sees moral action centered on humans so likewise Huxley saw moral action centered on humans.
Huxley gave what he himself called "lay sermons," and he worked hard to promote his world vision. In one of the most interesting moves, he and fellow workers even set about building churches -- cathedrals -- to their new religion. Except they called them "museums of natural history." These were places where, instead of going to a Christian cathedral on a Sunday morning, a family could go on a Sunday afternoon and seen magnificent panoramas of past life: all of those fossil dinosaurs being dug up in the American West and shipped east for all to see and admire. On the principle that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, natural history museum after museum was built in the style of a gothic cathedral or earlier. Gaze at the Norman architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and you could be in Durham, England.
As it happens, toward the end of his life, Thomas Henry Huxley began to doubt the worth of his philosophy. He did not return to God, but he began to doubt that evolution had all of the answers. But this has not stopped his successors, starting with another grandson, Julian Huxley. This younger Huxley even wrote a book called "Religion without Revelation," where he saw Darwinian evolution working progressively up to our species and where he saw nature itself giving directives about proper action -- action to preserve and help humankind. Today, the world's most distinguished Darwinian, Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University, likewise thinks that evolution progresses up to humans and speaks of his world picture as a "myth" that must replace conventional religions.
So the answer to the question "Is Darwinism a religion?" is varied, interesting and insightful. But I bet a million dollars that for the next 10 years it will be the first paragraph and only the first paragraph of this piece that will be quoted and requoted by those who are more interested in using my words for their own ends rather than for understanding what I am really trying to say.
Tim Suttle: Why Are Evangelicals Losing Influence?
Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feel free to call a person who does that a Darwinist, and call that a religion if you want But don't call me a Darwinist, even though I am an atheist who is convinced of the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is science. It can be tested and used predictively. It does not have morals, nor promote a moral position. It does have meaning, in that it has consequences for life, human or otherwise. Meaning is not synonymous with religion, nor even a necessary condition of religion (hence the phrase, "God works in mysterious ways.")
Not all practitioners of Evolution are Darwinists. I'll go so far as to say that the vast majority aren't.
Heh. Saw this in another post and it made me chuckle, having just seen this quote by Richard Dawkins in and interview: "I find it quite ironic -- amusing -- the thought that if you did build a politics or an ethical system on Darwinism, people like you and me would hate it. It really would be a very unpleasant world in which to live."
He uses the term dozens of times throughout the interview, which is from. . . . wait for it . . . "The Evolutionist"
Great. Should I question your intellectual dishonesty or just point out your whole screed, impassioned though it may be, had nothing to do with my point re the use of both terms? Either way, find a better target for your ranting.
However, you did fail to use the whole quote, which included this
Most atheists like to consider themselves "special" because they think they are more intelligent due to their lack of belief than those who still cling to religions. That's an irony, in and of itself, whereby someone who believes they are the result of a cosmic accident causing evolution is somehow special. When if evolution were correct they are significantly not special with a pointless existence.
Now, about your being an ex-Christian...there's no such animal. You may have attended church, etc., but if you were ever truly a Christian then you would know there's no such thing as an ex-Christian. It would simply be a case of you thought you were when you weren't. You can change your mind about things hundreds of times per day...but, you can't change your soul. Only the Holy Ghost can do that, and if you were truly saved then the Holy Ghost would not change it back to its prior status just to suit your enlightened intelligence.
You like to use the word "fractal". It's a mathematical term. And, mathematics can not be proven by naturalism or darwinism. Although, it is the basis for most sciences it, mathematics, is an intuitive knowledge. Probably, the most precise knowledge we have about anything non-physical.
I guess atheists find "mathematics" amazing due to the fact that it is beyond the realm of materialism yet exists. You know 'ol Pythagoras never actually found a triangle to conduct his experiments on to come up with his theorem...yet, he was correct.
Atheist, always, think they take the high ground when they say the burden of proof is on those who believe to prove the existence of God. They, atheists, don't want to prove a negative they reply...but, those involved with math prove negatives all day long.
Kind of funny isn't it.
Anyways, is Darwinism a religion? No.
Wasn't that simple.
I believe the laws of physics that I learned in college. Does that make physics a religion?
I believe what I learned about chemical reactions in college. Does that make chemistry a religion?
Evolution is science. It is factual. It happened and is still happening. It does not take faith to see this, just observation. Get over it.
And I'm not even a scientist, just a well-educated person.
When you have folks like Sam Harris promoting an objective science of morals, when such is not possible without smuggling in subjective elements, then the waters muddy quickly.
Only by those who don't have a full understanding of the underlying concept.
Evolution has none of this. It just happens. The theory trys to explain how and why. It's not a theory that evolution exists. The only way the religions can attack evolution is to question its existance.
The problem is, the definition of seeking understanding as a religious endeavour for the atheist is not logical:
Seeking understanding is a religious pursuit
I am an atheist seeking understanding
Therefore, I am religious.
The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise.
There are a few terms, like "seeking understanding," that have become associated with religion to the point that many religious people will insist that you're religious if you use them in any context. "Belief" and "faith" are other examples. It's hard to say "I believe the Theory of Evolution," or "I have faith that evolution explains the origin of the appendix, even though I don't know what that explanation is," without having somebody say, "See? You're religious!"
Morality, good, evil, spirituality... I'm sure there are more.
It doesn't address the origins of life, how the universe began, if god exists, or any of a multitude of philosophical questions.
It explains a biologic process. That's it. It's the religious that have worked so hard to make it seem like a religion (starting with creating the silly term "Darwinist.")
That's because you put this at the end of the article. Fundamentalists don't finish articles. They don't need to when quote mining.
philosophers are experts on framing ideas and defining terms (which is what he is doing in the article) I have read dozens of contemporary philosophy books over the past 20 years and have always felt enlightened by them and not intellectually degraded.
Many modern philosophers work hand in hand with scientists and politicians in order to help them ask the proper questions, properly define their ideas and terms and place it all within a coherent framework.
Philosophy is the foundation of all critical thought, reason and science. Without a decent foundation in it I often wonder if people are actually understanding these ideas at all, much less in the proper framework.
If your in a gathering and someone asks, "who is the smartest person in the room?" most likely it would be a philosopher. NOT A SCIENTIST!
I read much more science than philosophy nowadays but honestly if you've never read or have not read in a while a contemporary philosophical work (many write for the layman) then I feel you are unqualified to make such a statement.
If you have read some and found them in dire need of something then by all means enlighten me with the titles and shortcomings.
I would also add that religion has 2 further components: the need to worship (not necessarily a supernatural entity) and the need to elevate man to a "higher status" compared to his peers (and this may involve a supernatural entity). What Christians call "Self Righteousness" or "Self Justification".
I would take it one step further than the author and say: "YES! When at the sporting arena, that is worship!"
Is Darwinism a religion?
Turn it around. What is the basis for your world view and belief system? That is where you will find your religion.
But, no, that's *not* 'religion by definition,' what you cite: that's *one* definition of religion, though probably not one evolution denialists are far from. :)
"Nyaaah Nyaaaah nYaaaah You're a religion TOOOOoooo."
what's up with that? hmmm?????