This is a really interesting point, but isn't there a lot of room between the total rejection of all external limits and the total determination of all values by an absolute creator God? I prefer a picture that includes a lot more scope for collective human determination without thinking that individual determination (or even collective determination) is boundless, for the same reason I'd prefer, all else being equal, to live in a democracy rather than an absolute monarchy, even if my own vote doesn't matter much. A worldview that derives from the Enlightenment without going all the way to Existentialism.
I also suspect it's possible to see evolution and human self-determination as having a wider area of overlap than we might think, though that's a trickier question.
• I don't think the assumption of the existence of God would necessarily imply the existence of a divine plan regarding human life. Philosophers and theologists in the traditions I'm most familiar with – Christianity and theistic Hinduism – have sometimes stopped short of positing the existence of such plan.
• The discipline of evolutionary epistemology explored the above in detail. I particularly like Gerd Theißen's "Biblical Faith: An Evolutionary Approach" (1984), Fortress Press, 1985.
• I'm not sure present-day widespread discomfort with religions has much to do with supposed limitations of freedom. Late (i.e. Roman) Stoicism teaches the supreme imperative for human beings to align personal actions and values to a pre-defined set of incontrovertible values and universal laws that determine the very essence of human life: adhesion to these predetermined laws is the only way to happiness. Now, Stoicism is highly popular in our time.
This is a really interesting point, but isn't there a lot of room between the total rejection of all external limits and the total determination of all values by an absolute creator God? I prefer a picture that includes a lot more scope for collective human determination without thinking that individual determination (or even collective determination) is boundless, for the same reason I'd prefer, all else being equal, to live in a democracy rather than an absolute monarchy, even if my own vote doesn't matter much. A worldview that derives from the Enlightenment without going all the way to Existentialism.
I also suspect it's possible to see evolution and human self-determination as having a wider area of overlap than we might think, though that's a trickier question.
• I don't think the assumption of the existence of God would necessarily imply the existence of a divine plan regarding human life. Philosophers and theologists in the traditions I'm most familiar with – Christianity and theistic Hinduism – have sometimes stopped short of positing the existence of such plan.
• The discipline of evolutionary epistemology explored the above in detail. I particularly like Gerd Theißen's "Biblical Faith: An Evolutionary Approach" (1984), Fortress Press, 1985.
• I'm not sure present-day widespread discomfort with religions has much to do with supposed limitations of freedom. Late (i.e. Roman) Stoicism teaches the supreme imperative for human beings to align personal actions and values to a pre-defined set of incontrovertible values and universal laws that determine the very essence of human life: adhesion to these predetermined laws is the only way to happiness. Now, Stoicism is highly popular in our time.
I like the quote from Midgley. But also imagine the opposite - the total horror of having absolute freedom!
That quote from Midgley is wonderful; where is it from?
"On Not Being Afraid of Natural Sex Differences"