Hi Mitchell,
I’d like to try to play fair on this topic, if you’re willing. I’m wary that your “evolutionary Christianity” won’t allow you to see what is actually true on this topic. But I’m willing to try to raise your awareness from it’s current state.
You wrote:
-
"I look for a list of famous evolutionary psychologists and I read about one theist after another .”
-
“All I could do was google ‘famous evolutionary psychologists’ and I reported what I saw. I do not claim that what I saw proves anything.”
To be fair, more “could” have been done on your part than just using google → Wikipedia, with the term “famous”. Do you disagree?
“How can I be mistaken about what I see or do not see?”
You are mistaken about what you believe to be true that is not true. You said, “I read about one theist after another” working today actively in the sub-field called “evolutionary psychology”. But that simply isn’t true, is it Mitchell? If it were true, you’d be able to line them up alongside of Justin Barrett, who is an anomaly on the topic.
What would it take for you to accept that eVopsych is dominated by atheists and agnostics, perhaps more than any other subfield in the contemporary academy (comparable with “evolutionary religious studies”)? As for me, I haven’t yet seen a social survey of evolutionary psychologists, so that’s the evidence that’s lacking that you seem to require in order to believe. Do I understand you correctly that this is your demand? Otherwise, it’s actually not that hard to read the ideological and worldview commitments of evolutionary psychologists in their writings, in the majority of cases. Doing the reading will provide you with awareness about “evolutionary psychology” that you currently do not seem to have.
“I cannot even imagine where you think such an authority should come from.”
From a knowledge hierarchy? More specifically in this case, from sociology, which studies people and groups, the proper field for this inquiry. From insights gained and knowledge produced in the sub-field sociology of science, which studies (among other things) the worldviews of scientists and scholars themselves. I hope that helps your imagination, since this is not a new topic for some people, though it may seem surprising to you.
It doesn’t look like you’re actually claiming anything to do with content produced by “famous evolutionary psychologists” (just to suppose that they’re “famous”). It looks like you’re just retelling what is available on a Wikipedia page. The numbers beside names that you quoted above come from that Wiki page, is it right?
This should then help provide some balance for you, coming from the same trust-level source: Criticism of evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia
“Seventh in the list is David Buller who Gregory would like because he has written a critique of evolutionary psychology. Clearly he is not an atheist and Gregory’s claim is now a solid failure… so maybe Gregory was just exaggerating.”
Buller’s worldview is not known to me. My hunch is that he’s an atheist or agnostic. He’s one of those who “critique Evolutionary Psychology”, while promoting “evolutionary psychology”. His promotion of eVopsych seems to be of the Australian Indigenous “white man know no dreaming” variety that one finds a LOT of in western psychology, sociology, anthropology & cultural studies departments nowadays.
Note that critiquing eVopsych can be done by atheists & agnostics also. Mary Midgley was stellar at this! One just finds the gap rather large where it doesn’t make sense to easily embrace a “sub-discipline” / ideology that from its foundation calls into question the very “divinity” on which their worldview is based. That’s kinda nonsensical as a matching problem for evangelicals, isn’t it, Mitchell? It’s hard to see how you could avoid this. In short, why embrace “evolutionary psychology” when it is quite obviously in the vast majority atheism- & agnosticism-oriented and dominated, which tries to “naturalize religion”?
Sorry, but you’re incorrect. Darwin said he wasn’t an atheist, and it’s a stretch to call him a “psychologist”.
There are 61 names on the Wikipedia page Mitchell linked to. I’m willing to stand by the # of 97% to adjust for Barrett. Would that be enough for Mitchell to come up with another name? He would in that case need to bring to the table some content himself – a name, and some texts they’ve written – instead of depending on others to do it for him.
This shouldn’t be too hard, after he reported:
“I read about one theist after another”
Really or is that a fake claim? So, then who are these “one theist after another” supposedly evolutionary psychologists, Mitchell McCain? This is me calling out your bluff, ready to be surprised by what you find.
“I can certainly see why atheists would be particularly interested in such a field”.
Why not expand on this? It might offer something constructive to the conversation that hasn’t been present so far with “evolution” still over-determined in your scientific mind.