![Resisting The Rite](/api/image/getissuecoverimage?id=picture_2013_17148.jpg)
Resisting The Rite
The paper analyses multifaceted manifestations of resistance to "Rite of Spring" by Igor Stravinsky. It discusses artistic, cultural, philosophical, and political sources of the resistance.
More...We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The paper analyses multifaceted manifestations of resistance to "Rite of Spring" by Igor Stravinsky. It discusses artistic, cultural, philosophical, and political sources of the resistance.
More...
It is often held that the argument from biological design (ABD) was valid and almost universally accepted before Darwin, that it was the most important rational ground for theism, and that it was invalidated by Darwinism. However, this is wrong. The history of the ABD ran parallel with those of evolutionary theories, with Lamarck having published in 1801 and Paley in 1802. Evolutionary theories and the ABD were alternative responses to empirical evidence that (1) spontaneous generation does not occur, and (2) new species have arisen in geological history. The main reason why evolution was seldom hypothesized before 1796 was probably that materialism was tenable otherwise.
More...
Darwin’s greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. With Darwin’s discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer. The Copernican and the Darwinian Revolutions may be seen as the two stages of the one Scientific Revolution. They jointly ushered in the beginning of science in the modern sense of the word: explanation through natural laws. Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the "design" of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes, the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations (mutations) sorted out by natural selection. Which characteristics will be selected depends on which variations happen to be present at a given time in a given place. This in turn depends on the random process of mutation as well as on the previous history of the organisms. Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life. This was Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious.
More...
Although design arguments for the existence of God are sometimes dismissed as God of the Gaps apologetics, reasons for rejecting them based on the history of science, philosophy, religion, and pragmatism are not as compelling as is often implied. I argue that using multiple evidences of design in nature, with regular updates to accommodate new findings, can be a sound and convincing approach to apologetics.
More...
The evolution-creation controversy has last for a long time. At its core is the fact that evolutionists and creationists have different understandings of science. For the former science is a naturalistic enterprise. Explanations that go beyond the naturalistic ones are considered to be unscientific. On that basis it is claimed that creationism cannot be legitimate science. That point of view is widely popular among scientists but not among some of the philosophers of science. One of them was Paul K. Feyerabend who supported the idea of methodological anarchism according to which scientific progress is possible only when a number of methodological limitations be abrogated. In this light creationism is viewed as an alternative theory which provides external criticism and should not be a priori excluded on methodological grounds.
More...
Arguments for the existence of God that are based on design often specify an aspect of our natural world that cannot be explained by our current understanding of the laws of nature. Such a gap of knowledge is construed as evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. Critics of this approach label these arguments as „God-of-the-gaps” fallacies that diminish the case for a Creator God as the gaps are filled in with increasing knowledge. Confident that all such gaps will someday be filled via the scientific method, many people reject design arguments for God. However, gaps of knowledge do exist in nature and the scientific community acknowledges that many cannot be filled, even in principle. This article surveys various types of gaps and considers their role in an argument for God.
More...
I propose the model of division of statements on the reality that differentiate them according to the degree of their empirical character. The following model is supposed to facilitate analysis of propositions on the relation of science and religion. One extreme are metaphysical statements (in the logical empiricism’s view of metaphysics) that are empirically neutral. The other extreme are empirical statements characterized by the maximum level of testability. It is demonstrated how ignoring the levels of analysis influences some positions on science and religion. Problematic positions are named ‘too easily conflicting’ and ‘too easily reconciliating’ science and religion. In the first case I present negative reception of scientific theory of evolution by Michał Chaberek on the basis of ontological assumptions that are in conflict with assumptions of this theory. The problem of ‘too easy reconciliation’ of science and religion is the shift in the meaning of categories from the one on the lowest, empirical level, toward the meaning that belongs to the highest, metaphysical level of analysis. This problem is illustrated by the shift from interventionist concept of creation and divine action in the world toward its noninterventionist interpretation that limits God’s actions only to sustaining the world in its existence. We can find this shift in some theistic naturalism positions. In the last part I argue that the main difference between the mediaeval (traditional) and the contemporary positions on natural philosophy and religion that attempt to accommodate Christian and scientific worldviews is that contemporary thinkers ascribe epistemic authority not only to empirical statements of contemporary science, but also to its philosophical naturalistic assumption from higher levels of analysis. Holding these anti-interventionist and monistic ontology of nature leads them to extremely non-empirical understanding of relation between the supernatural and the natural world.
More...
There is, as evolutionists like to say, a mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin’s theory. But quantity does not always make for quality. For the most part, this evidence falls into three categories: comparative anatomy, small-scale change, and the fossil record. We will survey each category and see the same pattern in each case: only when used selectively or superficially does the evidence support evolution. When carefully considered, the evidence is ambiguous and even argues against evolution. The evidence for the theory of evolution are assessed on religious grounds, based on presuppositions about the nature of God and what this God would and would not do. It would be far more accurate to view Darwinian evolution as a religious theory that has penetrated natural science rather than as a scientific theory that impinges on our religious understandings. In purporting to keep science free from religion, evolution foists religion on science and thereby subverts the very integrity of science. Evolutionists have consistently promoted their theory as an objective conclusion based on a purely scientific analysis of the data. This is simply inaccurate. Evolution is an unlikely story fueled by theological presuppositions and religious sentiment, not scientific reasoning.
More...
In this essay I will focus on two important aspects of the philosophical baggage that is carried along in any discussion of the creation/evolution issue. Both involve questions about the nature of scientific methodology. The first deals with creationists’ contention that their creation hypothesis ought to be recognized not only as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution but perhaps even a better alternative. The second deals with their contention that science, because of its methods, is itself an „established religion”, and an atheist religion at that. In both cases, these contentions are unjustified. Creationists’ negative attacks upon evolution miss their mark — they have not advanced anything close to a positive scientific alternative to evolution, but have simply given an argument form ignorance. The design inference fails to confirm a transcendent designer — whether it is interpreted as an argument by analogy, an inference to the best explanation, or an eliminative argument. In the end, their version is no more than a spurious god-of-the-gaps argument. Creationists’ attack upon scientific method as being dogmatically atheistic is also misplaced. Science, properly understood, is not an „established” religion. It is indeed religiously neutral.
More...
This paper concerns the relationship between Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine and the concept of biological evolution. It is a response to theses presented by two catholic authors (Piotr Lichacz and William E. Carroll), according to whom Thomas’ teaching does not exclude, at any point, biological evolution widely accepted in contemporary science. Firstly, the article presents four basic difficulties to the idea presented by Lichacz and Carroll. If Thomas’ teaching could have been reconciled with the idea of evolution it must have been evolution somehow directed by God. Otherwise, evolution is atheistic concept which Thomas would have never agreed on. Nevertheless, this first condition does not solve all unconformities. The other problems to reconcile Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine and contemporary notion of biological evolution are different concept of causality, lack of species transformism in Aquinas’ doctrine and Christian belief that only God himself (in a direct act) can produce a totally new nature (natura perfecta) in matter. These three substantial ideas do not allow to say that Thomas’ teaching can be compatible with the modern concept of biological evolution. At some points, Aquinas’ doctrine is irrelevant to it, but at other, it directly excludes it.
More...
Review of: Hans-Dieter Mutschler, Wprowadzenie do filozofii przyrody. Wybrane zagadnienia, trans. Józef Bremer, Wydawnictwo WAM, Kraków 2005, pp. 238.
More...
Review of: Nathan Aviezer, Fossils and Faith: Understanding Torah and Science, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey 2001, pp. 271.
More...
In this article our concern will be with the methodological version of naturalism only. This version has attained some prominence in the busy science-and-theology literature in recent years and it is in this context primarily that I propose to discuss it. Instead of making a direct ontological claim as to what does or does not exist, methodological naturalism bears instead on the proper approach to be followed in the pursuit of knowledge, taking the methods of the natural sciences in one way or another as the model. For many of those writing about the relationship of science and theology, the term „methodological naturalism” stands for the ways in which science exercises undue epistemic authority vis-à-vis theology, and hence it has become the prompt for heavy attack. What I shall propose is that several different issues have gradually become mixed together in the resultant de-bate. From the perspective of the religious believer, it would greatly help to disentangle three different positions that could be described as „methodological naturalism”, two of which merit support, I shall argue.
More...
The history of science can be viewed as the recasting of phenomena that were once thought to be accidents as phenomena that can be understood in terms of fundamental causes and principles. This long and appealing trend may be coming to an end. Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents — a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.
More...
The author claims that Ingarden’s ontology is a contemporary version of Platonism. He argues that the concepts of distinct realizations of pure and ideal qualities in ideas and in individuals are unclear and unnecessary. In authors opinion the essential parts of Ingarden’s ontology may by explained in terms of possible and real individuals and its possible properties.
More...
The main intuitions underlying presented analyses may be expressed as follows. Any question corresponds to a certain incomplete image of situation – an image with a gap – and expresses the will of filling this gap. For example, the question “Who loves Isolde?” refers to the image of the situation in which the relation of love occurs; Isolde is the second argument of this relation, and the first argument of it is “empty”. Asking “Who loves Isolde?” we express our desire of filling the gap. To identify correctly ontic correlates of questions we ought to accept the view that semantic function of questions consists in indicate a certain image of situation and questioner’s attitude to this image. On the basis of these assumptions, semantic functions of questions as well as many other important erotetic notions are explicated. Analyses are illustrated by fragments from Roman Ingarden’s famous work Essential questions (Essentiale Fragen).
More...
The paper presents the idea that the constitution of a purely intentional object can be taken as a model of creation of the real world. Roman Ingarden’s concept of constitution of a literary work as a purely intentional object is adopted. It is compared with the Thomistic concept of world creation by God. This paper focuses on showing that in spite of the fundamental difference – creation gives a being that is real, which constitution cannot – there are interesting analogies between the two.
More...
The paper concerns the question deals with the issue of the mode of existence of musical work. The text consists of two parts. The first, describes difficulties connected with treatment of compositions as purely intentional objects. The second, presents the proper existence mode of a piece of music.
More...
As far as existence of enduring subjects of change is concerned, Roman Igarden’s substance ontology stands in direct opposition to Whitehead’s process metaphysics. However, with regard to domain of necessary relations, both systems are deeply platonic. Thus in this paper I pursue towards revealing some parallels and differences between both systems regarding views on ideal entities, necessary relations and pure possibilities. I examine whether having assumed contrary concepts of reality (substantial/procesual) both philosophers are forced to accept diverse conclusions in respect to ideal entities domain. I also point out some crucial problems that are to be found in both systems: what is the ground of necessary relations – is it a nature of so called ideal qualities, or is it content of ideas (Ingarden); is it an individual or a relational essence of eternal objects, so called “primordial nature of God”, or evolving actuality (Whitehead). Finally I investigate whether points of convergence between both concepts could serve as a basis for some modifications to overcome relevant problems.
More...