Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: new to S. K. group too
- Jim S --
Good to see you here again, Jim. I'm not sure Darwin was necessary to
conceive of a world without God. Obviously: Kierkegaard wrote about
atheism in CUP and perhaps in CA, if I recall correctly, and the
French Enlightenment was always much more hostile to religion than the
British. We need to distinguish the continental environment from the
British. From my reading in the history of science, it was the young
Darwinians -- T.H. Huxley, etc. -- who forcefully posed a stark
opposition between science and religion in Great Britain. Some form
of evolutionary theory was already a fairly well disseminated idea by
the time Darwin came around and not threatening except to a minority
of religious believers who insisted on literal readings of scripture
(these are usually a minority).
I'd say that any time after Newton perceptive people saw what was
coming -- a mechanized universe which, in Newton's thought, reveals
"God's invisible hand" was quickly being used to demonstrate no need
of a concept of God at all by some thinkers. I read Kierkegaard and
others like him as responding to the Enlightenment (which for K was
Hegel) very much aware of the strength of its critique.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:29 PM, jimstuart46 <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
> Either what Jim Rovira writes in his post or what I write here.
> Kierkegaard died in 1855, Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published in
> Darwin's idea that species evolution proceeds by natural selection allows
> the thinking individual to conceive of a world without God. With Darwin's
> idea, science challenges religious belief.
> Because "The Origin of Species" came after Kierkegaard, it is a mistake to
> think of him as our contemporary. He inhabited a different world, a world in
> which it was still possible to conceive of a personal God who answered
> prayer, and who came to earth in human form. A world in which a Christian
> could still lay claim to an unquestionable measure of intellectual
> Or did Kierkegaard see what was coming? Did he attempt to retain God by
> himself rejecting the objective God in order to describe, follow and obey
> the purely subjective God? Can an individual today believe in the subjective
> God and retain her intellectual integrity?
> Jim Stuart
- Don -- I'll visit the group page and try to hunt down previous
responses that I thought addressed your concerns. I receive/respond
to this list via email rather than the group page, so it's unnatural
for me to include references to post numbers.