continued

One can wear the glasses of natural science and still appreciate poetry, mystery and the wonder of life itself. One doesn’t need religion for that. From Darwin’s Origin of the Species:

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Darwin clearly had a poetic being, and his view of nature expressed it.

Social Darwinism was not Darwinism, but it was popular in Germany. Social Darwinism appeared in the nineteenth century. Far earlier than that Jews were massacred by Crusaders in the eleventh century. Centuries of Christian inspired Jew hatred followed. Hitler merely followed an ancient German tradition far older than Social Darwinism. With a few notable exceptions both the Christian clergy and the churches supported the Nazis. The Vatican signed a Concordat with Hitler.

In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country.

From what I read on the period Christianity had a much greater influence on Hitler than Social Darwinism.

continued

continued

I read Diarmaid MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity”. In it he wrote:

“I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species.”

That is the way I feel about Christianity. I am both fascinated and horrified by it. I am presently reading “From Jesus to Christianity” which tells of Christianity’s early history.

Craig Minns asked, “David F, I wonder if you could explain why you are so concerned about the dogmatic axioms of Peter's faith?”

Dear Craig,

Some of what Christians are asked to swear that they believe is contrary to reason. Yet the religion promotes honesty. Can anyone in good faith say that they believe that a human female was impregnated without male sperm? To swear that one believes such a thing is dishonest, but many do it. Some Christian creedal statements demand stating one believes in the virgin birth.

Dear George,

Sells posted on page 4 of comments, “The virgin birth is a story with profound consequences invented by the writer of Luke.” I responded to that. You know better.

We had a very relevant saying when I was doing "nasho",
"BS baffles brains."
Too true.

David

Dear david f,

>>Sells posted on page 4 of comments, “The virgin birth is a story with profound consequences invented by the writer of Luke.” <<

I don’t think this necessarily contradicts what I said, namely that God’s self-revelation - includiung through (or culminating at) what Luke, or his interpreters, saw as his invention - was also subject to an evolutionary process.

>>That is the way I feel about Christianity. I am both fascinated and horrified by it.<<

This is what I have often heard said also about mathematics.

In both cases this is an undertandable personal attitude, whatever the motivations, or life experiences that led to it.

In my view Christianity - like other religions to some extent - is a narrative about ultimate reality. It is neither just a philosophical orientation that can inspire arts, science and morality (as well as act against them), nor a fairy tale (mythology) to be taken verbatim by the philosophically unsophisticated, nor a “mystical experience” comparable to the more developed Oriental versions, nor a pain killer (“opium for the masses”). Christianity is all of these things taken TOGETHER, and more. And that is a problem for those who try to understand it but do not have “insider knowledge” (Polanyi’s indwelling).

Davidf, natural science is derived from religious impulses. All of the great natural philosophers were and are interested in the same questions as religious thinkers, ultimately.

Whether religion is "necessary" is a profoundly uninteresting question. It exists in some form in every human culture; it is a feature, not a bug.

Whether Hitler was Christian is,with respect, a red herring, as was Peter's initial raising of "social Darwinism". Neither are relevant and both reflect more on your respective cognitive biases than on the subject.

Yes, religion can lead to profoundly flawed social outcomes. Yes, it can be hijacked by horrid people to justify abhorrent actions. Yes, it can be stultifying.

The same may be said of the natural sciences. One of the main reasons for science's rapid development over the past 500 years and for advances in earlier times has been the demand for improvements in technology to enhance military capability. Many great advances in science have been actively suppressed by elderly greats who wished to preserve their own status, or perhaps could simply not grasp a new paradigm after having spent a lifetime devoted to an older one.

Trying to stand on such soggy moral high ground is a pretty fraught endeavour on both sides of this discussion.

Personally, I'm trying to find a bit of firmer footing between the two camps.

VK3AUU, you must feel fortunate that nature has equipped you with such a small target for bafflement.

Dear George and Craig Minns,

Thank you for taking the trouble to read my posts.

In my opinion science, mathematics and religion come from the same impulse, the desire to understand and explain the world. The natural sciences are not derived from religion. That is confusing correlation with causation. In my retirement I decided to investigate some area of natural science. I chose mycology and joined the Queensland Mycology Society. QMS goes on forays to investigate and classify fungi found in Queensland. They occasionally find a new species. At 89 I no longer go out with them. Some of the terrain is rough and too much for me.

The taxonomy associated with fungi is not as advanced as that associated with that of other biota. Much of the pre-twentieth century work was done by clerics who saw the study of nature as a means of learning more about the work of God. However, many saw fungi as the work of the devil. That is a reason why the knowledge of fungi is not as extensive as the knowledge of other life.

Religion has encouraged and discouraged science. Unfortunately it has discouraged the science of astronomy in imprisoning Galileo and killing Hypatia, Servetus and Bruno. At present the Vatican astronomical observatory is furthering astronomy. Gregor Mendel came from a poor family and would not have had an education were it not for the Catholic Church. His experiments revealed that hereditary traits were transmitted in discrete items not in blending of traits from both parents as Darwin thought. He published before Darwin did, but Darwin was unacquainted with his work. The problem of the fragmenting of knowledge is even greater today because of the vast outpouring of publications.

I agree with you, Craig Minns. I responded to Sells comment on the adoption of Social Darwinism by Germany and its justification for the acts of Nazi Germany. I countered with the influence of Christianity on Nazi Germany. They both reflect more on our respective cognitive biases than on the subject.

Continued