Recently, some reading has been done on my part, concerning naturalistic explanations of religious belief. Once I've digested the articles I've been sent on the topic and if I can convince myself to postpone other studies, I'll write up my thoughts. I'd like to have something published somewhere with a bit more exposure; maybe Craccum (quite notable for its level of exposure!) or maybe somewhere else.
But, as it was recommended that I start with Dawkins, I did. I was a little surprised at what I found. This is from Chapter 7 of "The God Delusion" (you're welcome to check the ref. if you doubt it; p.168 in my copy of the chapt.) He goes on to recommend Darwinian explanations as 'ultimate' (who would have guessed it?), but note the bolded terms [my emphasis].
Just in case you're a bit slow on the uptake, or not as rabidly in to such things as myself, let's play that old game of "replacing words":
But, as it was recommended that I start with Dawkins, I did. I was a little surprised at what I found. This is from Chapter 7 of "The God Delusion" (you're welcome to check the ref. if you doubt it; p.168 in my copy of the chapt.) He goes on to recommend Darwinian explanations as 'ultimate' (who would have guessed it?), but note the bolded terms [my emphasis].
"… Psychological explanations to the effect that people find some belief agreeable or disagreeable are proximate, not ultimate, explanations.Are you thinking what I’m thinking, B1?
Darwinians make much of this distinction between proximate and ultimate. The proximate explanation for the explosion in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine invokes the sparking plug. The ultimate explanation concerns the purpose for which the explosion was designed: to impel a piston from the cylinder, thereby turning a crankshaft. …”
Just in case you're a bit slow on the uptake, or not as rabidly in to such things as myself, let's play that old game of "replacing words":
The idea that an immaterial purpose counts as an 'ultimate explanation' is something well worth considering. Thanks, mate! [Picture: St. Tom A, courtesy of: you guessed it; Wikipedia]Christians [particularly, it seems, Catholics (Thomists?)] make much of this distinction between proximate and ultimate. The proximate explanation for the explosion which resulted in our universe invokes quantum vacuum fluctuations [or such]. The ultimate explanation concerns the purpose for which the explosion was designed: to produce a life-friendly universe, thereby allowing beings which could have a relationship with God to exist.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment