Bruce Charlton comments on an atheist who didn’t follow his folly far enough:
Dawkins is a good example of one who refused to follow his path of excess to the palace of wisdom; because he was not even aiming at wisdom; he refused to persist in his folly, hence he remained a fool rather than becoming wise.
Two examples. The book Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) was an exercise in distraction, a non sequitur in response to the century-plus of observations that If natural selection were indeed regarded the ultimate truth, Then art, poetry, morality, science (including natural selection) and much else are invalidated.
(This is a fact; because all our feelings, indeed all our knowledge is revealed by the assumption as merely the side effects of adaptations to enhance reproductive success. For example, if natural selection is primary; the theory of natural selection destroys its own validity; all scientific theories being merely side-effects of the process of enhancing differential reproductive fitness.)
Essentially, one must reason this way in order to successfully adopt evolution and maintain a humanitarian and theistic worldview:
- If natural selection is the ultimate truth,
then art, poetry, morality, science, and all endeavors of human beings are invalid. - Human endeavors are valid.
- Therefore, natural selection is not the ultimate truth.
Anyway, read Dr. Charlton’s post. It’s great.