A peek at the future of science, SJW-style

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 8, 2018

Culture, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Abstract: This article addresses questions in human geography and the geographies of sexuality by drawing upon one year of embedded in situ observations of dogs and their human companions at three public dog parks in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of this research is to uncover emerging themes in human and canine interactive behavioral patterns in urban dog parks to better understand human a-/moral decision-making in public spaces and uncover bias and emergent assumptions around gender, race, and sexuality. Specifically, and in order of priority, I examine the following questions: (1) How do human companions manage, contribute, and respond to violence in dogs? (2) What issues surround queer performativity and human reaction to homosexual sex between and among dogs? and (3) Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender? It concludes by applying Black feminist criminology categories through which my observations can be understood and by inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupts hegemonic masculinities and improves access to emancipatory spaces. – Helen Wilson, Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography Received 27 Nov 2017, Accepted 19 Feb 2018, Published online: 22 May 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346

Maybe Bret Weinstein’s former students could get a job doing this kind of research? Better this than teaching, health care, or cancer research.

One hopes this will turn out to be a hoax or that they are kidding. One fears not.

In other news, Big Science frets about Ken Ham’s Creation Museum, as if it could possibly have the same cultural impact as their tacit acceptance that this stuff above is science.

See also: Weasel words about teaching students to think like scientists. “Likewise, STEM majors’ college experience must be integrated into a broader model of liberal education to prepare them to think critically and imaginatively about the world and to understand different viewpoints.” Realistically, today, that would mean valuing witchcraft and astrology to the same extent as science.

Algebra is not racist.

and

The war on freedom is rotting our intellectual life: Intersectionality

Comments

SA,
Again, I agree here.
See, atheists and theists can agree with each other. :)Allan Keith_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

AK
Two points. First, how do you repent after a suicide? And second, I can’t accept that someone who commits suicide due to mental illness is committing a sin.
On the second point, yes agreed. There would be no sin if the person is mentally ill. A serious sin would require a deliberate, conscious and willful act. On the second point, there is a split second or sometimes even minutes after the suicidal act and before death. A person may realize that they have done something very wrong and they might turn to God to repent of this even while dying. Many mystics have said that God gives the person a chance also at that last minute. Forgiveness is available, if the person wants it. Some people, sadly, will turn away. They choose not to repent and go towards God. In this way, we say that God doesn't put the person in Hell, instead the person chooses Hell rather than ask for (and receive) forgiveness. This is an interesting page from a man who was very worried about his grandmother who committed suicide. The topic is the message of Divine Mercy that St. Faustina of Poland gave.
Saint Faustina wrote: God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly it seems as if everything were lost. [This is what it looked like for my grandmother.] But it is not so. The soul illuminated by a ray of God’s powerful final grace turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! … Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God (Diary, 1698) https://www.sign.org/articles/divine-mercy-suicide
AK
I would tell them that there is help and support for that. And that when they address their underlying illness they will find that there are many things to enjoy about life. If they have family and friends, I would remind them that their death would have negative impacts on them as well.
Again, I agree here.Silver Asiatic_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

SA,
Teaching meaning “indoctrinating a belief”.
With respect, isn't teaching people that suicide is a sin and will result in you going to hell "indoctrinating a belief"? I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we teach kids about suicide. But teaching them about mental illness and depression, and that they can make people do things that they wouldn't normally do is important. And reinforcing that depression and mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of and that when they experience these that support is available.
My belief system holds that suicide is not an escape from pain but rather, in many cases, leads to more pain for the person who kills themselves.
We agree on this. I suspect the only situation where we would disagree is with those with terminal illness.
If suicide is a bad action, then there is justice to pay – and I believe consequences for those who commit the act as there are with any unrepented sins.
Two points. First, how do you repent after a suicide? And second, I can't accept that someone who commits suicide due to mental illness is committing a sin.
If children are taught that suicide is a good way to avoid pain, then children will commit suicide (as many do). If they are taught that suicide causes more pain, then less will do it.
But nobody is suggesting that we teach kids that suicide is good.
Why?
Why what? There were two opinions made in that statement.
Why not let them kill themselves, or at least make it easy for them to do that?
Please don't play the same juvenile word games that StephenB and BA77 do. You are more honest than that.
Ok, please do so.
If their thoughts of suicide are due to depression (most are), I would tell them that there is help and support for that. And that when they address their underlying illness they will find that there are many things to enjoy about life. If they have family and friends, I would remind them that their death would have negative impacts on them as well.Allan Keith_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

People already know that it is a way of escaping painful situations. What do you mean by “teaching them”?
Teaching meaning "indoctrinating a belief". It is a belief that suicide results in less pain. My belief system holds that suicide is not an escape from pain but rather, in many cases, leads to more pain for the person who kills themself. In my view, there are consequences. Suicide is an unjust act. As you say, there are bad consequences for family and loved ones. If suicide is a bad action, then there is justice to pay - and I believe consequences for those who commit the act as there are with any unrepented sins. So, it depends what people are taught. We teach children things. If children are taught that suicide is a good way to avoid pain, then children will commit suicide (as many do). If they are taught that suicide causes more pain, then less will do it.
I would argue that, except in situations of excruciating physical pain and suffering, it would only be considered a good option by those who have some mental illness issues.
Why?
Wouldn’t it be better to remove the stigma around mental illness and make sure that adequate support is available ...
Why not let them kill themselves, or at least make it easy for them to do that?
From the atheist perspective it is difficult to explain why a person should not commit suicide. AK Not difficult at all.
Ok, please do so.Silver Asiatic_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

SA,
In the ~~nihilistic~~ atheist viewpoint, there are no consequences for the person who commits suicide.
I think death is a pretty serious consequence. If you are asking if there are any subsequent consequences, there are none for the person committing suicide but there certainly are for family members and loved ones.
It’s a valid option for anyone who wants to do it.
Valid? Yes. A good decision? Probably not for most.
If it is taught that suicide is a legitimate means of escaping from painful situations, then more people will do it.
People already know that it is a way of escaping painful situations. What do you mean by "teaching them"?
If avoiding pain is a good thing, and suicide enables that, then people will consider suicide as a good option.
I would argue that, except in situations of excruciating physical pain and suffering, it would only be considered a good option by those who have some mental illness issues. Wouldn't it be better to remove the stigma around mental illness and make sure that adequate support is available rather than lie to them and say that it is a sin and that they will go to hell if they kill themselves. It seems to me that doing that would only aggravate the problems they have.
From the ~~nihilistic~~ atheist perspective it is difficult to explain why a person should not commit suicide.
Not difficult at all.Allan Keith_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

In the nihilistic viewpoint, there are no consequences for the person who commits suicide. It's a valid option for anyone who wants to do it. We hear about "murder suicide" events where a person wants to escape justice. If it is taught that suicide is a legitimate means of escaping from painful situations, then more people will do it. If avoiding pain is a good thing, and suicide enables that, then people will consider suicide as a good option. From the nihilistic perspective it is difficult to explain why a person should not commit suicide. If there is nothing wrong with it, then a person simply chooses it. I made this point about Anthony Bourdain. He made a decision. The Darwinian belief will view this with indifference. In fact, in evolutionary terms, there are no moral actions. There is no good or bad in evolutionary terms. A living organism is not "better" than non-living. There is no need for anything to exist in evolutionary terms. Nothing can be morally wrong - there can be no sin. Evolution is not "successful" - it's just a natural process like gravity. The fact that we have ordered human societies with moral and civil laws and rights - is an argument against Darwinian ideas.Silver Asiatic_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

SA,
What would be a morally good reason for deliberately killing oneself? If it is morally good, why would we want to prevent such a thing?
I don't think that suicide is either morally good or bad. In many cases it is the result of mental illness. If there is a moral responsibility, it is on society for not providing enough support for people with mental illnesses. With regard to a terminal patient committing suicide, either with or without a doctor's assistance, I think that the decision should be up to the individual and is not a moral issue. An argument could even be made that the medical community has a moral obligation to assist in the suicide of a terminal patient as long as it is clearly the will of the patient. And in the rare instances when a person commits suicide and has no mental health issues, or chronic pain and suffering, I still don't see it as a moral issue. Personally I think that the person is making the wrong decision and I would try to talk them out of it but, ultimately, it is his or her life.Allan Keith_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Bob - ok, understood.Silver Asiatic_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

SA - Please read the part of my previous reply that you didn't quote.Bob O'H_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

To take a slightly extreme example, I don’t see kneeling on one knee as inherently a moral or immoral act, but there will be circumstances when the decision to kneel can be seen as moral or immoral.
What are circumstances that would make suicide morally good or morally bad?Silver Asiatic_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

SA - I wrote that I didn't see suicide as a moral issue, so for me the question about when it is morally good isn't a question about the morals of suicide. Yes, examples can be invented when it is morally good, but the moral judgment would, I think, be about the surrounding acts. To take a slightly extreme example, I don't see kneeling on one knee as inherently a moral or immoral act, but there will be circumstances when the decision to kneel can be seen as moral or immoral.Bob O'H_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Bob- reflecting on a previous comment here I said that Jesus didn't talk about compassion and I mentioned the Beatitudes (blessed are the ...) - just correcting myself. He did say "blessed are the merciful" and that basically means "compassionate", so I was incorrect on that. However, He also says "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice". So, compassion has to go together with justice. When we condemn an evil act, it is justice to do that. But we also should be merciful (compassionate) in so doing. Anyway - you were correct in your original comment and I just wanted to establish that.Silver Asiatic_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Bob
I simply don’t see suicide itself as a moral issue (although the surrounding issues, e.g. why people decide that suicide is an option may well have a moral component).
I think normally we say that some actions are morally wrong, for example, murder. But then also there are circumstances that make it justifiable. But because murder can be justified in some cases, we wouldn't say that murder is not a moral issue. True? What would be a morally good reason for deliberately killing oneself? If it is morally good, why would we want to prevent such a thing?Silver Asiatic_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ 34 -
Bob @ 30
I’m actually not sure suicide itself has to be morally wrong, but that’s not to say that I think suicide is a good thing.
It’s not clear what you’re saying here. Could you explain?
I simply don't see suicide itself as a moral issue (although the surrounding issues, e.g. why people decide that suicide is an option may well have a moral component).
It’s easy to say that if you’re depressed you should seek help, but the very nature of depression makes it difficult to actually look for help.
I’m not trying to minimize the suffering that people encounter. But it’s also true that people do not become entirely irrational even when suffering depression. Maintaining and building good mental health is a daily, on-going effort. It’s not just something you do when you’re out of control.
(I assume the first sentence didn't come out quite as you intended!) Your views sound great in the abstract, but are divorced from the reality of living with depression. It's easy to say that one should eat more greens and get regular exercise, but it's difficult to actually do this when you are depressed. What you're suggesting is like telling someone with a broken leg that they should go for a 5 mile run to strengthen their muscles.Bob O'H_{June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

I agree that I share a common origin with plants and bacteria, and that this common origin might limit the meaning I can establish for my life (e.g., mortality, etc.) but that does not mean that we must have the same meaning.
Your origin tells you what your are. In the Darwinian belief, your origin is the same as plants and bacteria, and therefore your meaning is the same. Your meaning is the same as a single amoeba in a pond somewhere. It emerged through accidental processes. It does not need to exist. You are the same. A collection of proteins, cells - chemicals, molecules. Nothing more. Of course, you can invent your own meaning, but there is no reason to do such a thing. You have no reason to believe your own imagined-meaning. Nobody else needs to believe it either. It's just your imagination. You are claiming to yourself to have some meaning, but you really have none. That is essential in the materialist-atheist viewpoint.Silver Asiatic_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 43: "I find atheists, especially militant internet atheists, to be the most intellectually dishonest group of people I have ever met. EVER!!! I agree completely. I also find them to be unusually angry and bitter.Truth Will Set You Free_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

SA,
Darwin explains your origin, why you exist. Whatever meaning you create for yourself must be tied-back to Darwin’s teaching that you are the product of accidental, random changes. You share the same meaning as plants or bacteria, and differ from them only because of some physical features that randomly emerged for survival.
I agree that I share a common origin with plants and bacteria, and that this common origin might limit the meaning I can establish for my life (e.g., mortality, etc.) but that does not mean that we must have the same meaning. I have no way of knowing if individual bacteria and plants have any meaning. Since they do not have brains, I would suspect that they have no meaning, but who knows. They each have an impact on our ecosystem, as do we, but that is not a meaning. They do not do anything for the purpose of the ecosystem. The meaning I bring to my life is the meaning that I decide it to have.Allan Keith_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

BA @ 43. That says everything. Excellent. The atheists who admit that they cannot live consistently with their worldview are at least one step more intellectually honest than the atheists who deny that there is a contradiction. However, just admitting that they are hypocritical is not enough to be truly honest. What is required is that the person must "conform his mind to the truth". To be intellectually honest, that must be done, regardless of how difficult or painful it might be. What happens instead, unfortunately, is the same people try to "conform the truth to their mind" - by this is it a matter of twisting, ignoring, denying and hiding from the very same truth that they can clearly see.Silver Asiatic_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

How do I rely on him to derive meaning?
Darwin explains your origin, why you exist. Whatever meaning you create for yourself must be tied-back to Darwin's teaching that you are the product of accidental, random changes. You share the same meaning as plants or bacteria, and differ from them only because of some physical features that randomly emerged for survival.Silver Asiatic_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

AK asks: "Have you ever thought that atheists might simply be more honest with their feelings? Or less delusional?" I find atheists, especially militant internet atheists, to be the most intellectually dishonest group of people I have ever met. EVER!!! As to your claim that atheists are 'less delusional' than Christian Theists, (and to piggy back on posts 36, 39 and 40), even leading Atheists will often admit that it is impossible for them to live as if Atheistic Materialism were actually true.
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Richard Dawkins, Mr. God Delusion himself, admitted that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
bornagain77_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Highly religious people say they’re happier, too, survey finds
Based on a survey? Have you ever thought that atheists might simply be more honest with their feelings? Or less delusional?
A proposal to classify happiness as a psychiatric disorder http://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/18/2/94.full.pdf
:) :) :) Before you jump all over this, the article is satire.Allan Keith_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Per AK at 37 in his attempt to tease out some good news for the depressing stats on the Atheist's suicide rate, he might want to look at this study
Highly religious people say they’re happier, too, survey finds April 12, 2016 Look around. Three in 10 people you see claim they are pretty satisfied with life, happy, healthy and moral, too. They’re the “highly religious,” 30 percent of U.S. adults who say they pray daily and attend church at least once a week. “Religion in Everyday Life,” a new survey from Pew Research released Tuesday (April 12), teases out the particular ways they differ from the majority of U.S. Christians who are less observant and from non-Christians, including the “nones” who claim no religious identity. https://religionnews.com/2016/04/12/happiness-christians-nones-pew-research/
bornagain77_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

and finally, the Atheistic Materialist must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is (apparently) too much for him to bear (Weikart),
Study: Atheists Find Meaning In Life By Inventing Fairy Tales - Richard Weikart MARCH 29, 2018 Excerpt: However, there is a problem with this finding. The survey admitted the meaning that atheists and non-religious people found in their lives is entirely self-invented. According to the survey, they embraced the position: “Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself.” Thus, when religious people say non-religious people have no basis for finding meaning in life, and when non-religious people object, saying they do indeed find meaning in life, they are not talking about the same thing. If one can find meaning in life by creating one’s own meaning, then one is only “finding” the product of one’s own imagination. One has complete freedom to invent whatever meaning one wants. This makes “meaning” on par with myths and fairy tales. It may make the non-religious person feel good, but it has no objective existence. http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/29/study-atheists-find-meaning-life-inventing-fairy-tales/
Moreover, the Atheistic Materialist must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
Morality: Objective and Real or Subjective and Illusory? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnrrIvz8mSE Stealing from God: Atheists Presuppose God for Morality - Frank Turek, PhD - 2015 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWxBxDMTzjM If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: - Peter Kreeft - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM
Bottom line in their rejection of God, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. In fact, when examined in critical detail, it is found that Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a testable science but is more properly classified, at least how Darwinists treat it, as a untestable, unfalsifiable, pseudo-science.
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; Matthew 7:24-27 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
bornagain77_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

cont. from 36, And it gets worse from there on out for the Atheistic materialist. The Atheistic Materialist is also forced to claim that free will is an illusion, and as such undermines any claim that he is making a logically coherent argument in the first place:
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
Moreover, even if free will were not 'illusory' in the Atheist's materialistic worldview, is Darwinian evolution were actually true, the Darwinists still could not trust if his beliefs about reality were actually true.
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.” Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/
Moreover, even if his beliefs about reality were reliable, the atheistic materialist's perceptions of reality would still be illusory:
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601
Moreover, since atheists have no real time evidence supporting their claims for Darwinian evolution, they must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins),
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 “... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012 Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer - Francisco J. Ayala - May 15, 2007 Excerpt: "Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the 'design' of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,",,, Darwin's Explanation of Design Darwin's focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker impress us with the illusion of design and planning. - Richard Dawkins - The Bilnd Watchmaker - pg. 21 https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&pg=PA21 “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” - Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker - pg. 1, 1986 "Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this" Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit - p. 30 “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1990) living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Richard C. Lewontin - Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book 'Evolution' (September 1978) “This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.... Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.” George Gaylord Simpson - “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” - 1947
bornagain77_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

SA,
Charles Darwin does not exist (in a material sense). You rely on him to derive meaning.
How do I rely on him to derive meaning? Atheists long predate Darwin. All he did was to propose a theory by which life changed over time. An interesting subject of research, but nothing more.Allan Keith_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

SA,
I will agree that we can’t just run to a doctor every time we have anxiety or fear or despondency. In many cases the doctor cannot fix it anyway — but God can (and does) heal. So, it’s really a matter of turning to God for help in those times of despair. It is seeing the purpose and direction of one’s life as being within God’s plan.
I don't agree that believing in god is what causes lower suicide rates. I suspect that the lower suicide rate for religious people has more to do with the support system that is inherent in any frequent social interaction. And given that atheists do not attend church, they have one less social support system than people who attend church do. I think that it is also associated with the general social acceptance of religious practices in the individual countries and regions. South America has the greatest difference in suicide rate of religious people, the difference in the US is lower and the difference in Europe goes the other way (higher suicide rate for religious people). The correlation between the overall social acceptance of religion and the suicide rate of its practitioners is very interesting. And to dispel BA77's nonsense about Christianity having the lowest suicide rates of any religion, I direct him towards the suicide rates of Israel (5.4/100000), United Arab Emirates (2.8/100000) and Brazil (6/100000). What would be of interest would be to examine the suicide rates of atheists with few and weak family connections, those with strong supportive family connections and those with strong supportive family connections and active non-family social interactions (e.g., Legions, Lions Club, etc.). It would surprise me if we did not see a gradation of suicide rates along these categories.Allan Keith_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith, too funny. You state:
You misunderstand what being an atheist is. The only difference between you and me is that I do not require the existence of a non-existant mythical being to derive meaning for my life, or tell me how to lead my life. If you want to call that nihilism, that’s fine. A more accurate description would be realism.
You have the actual situation completely backwards. If anything, in your dogmatic refusal to ever accept any evidence for the reality of God, you have not chosen 'realism' but have in fact chosen a perverse form of 'anti-realism' where everything in your atheistic worldview, things that common people regard as being real and concrete, dissolves into flights of fantasy and imagination. Perhaps the most humorous thing about militant atheists claiming that God does not really exist, is that they, in their denial of the reality of God, also end up denying that they really exist as real ‘persons’. That is to say, if God is an illusion then the atheist himself becomes an illusion.
Ross Douthat Is On Another Erroneous Rampage Against Secularism – Jerry Coyne – December 26, 2013 Excerpt: “many (but not all) of us accept the notion that our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” Jerry Coyne – Professor of Evolutionary Biology – Atheist https://newrepublic.com/article/116047/ross-douthat-wrong-about-secularism-and-ethics At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.” – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018 Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,, Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/ “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness By STEVEN PINKER - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004 https://www.scribd.com/document/183053947/Experience-Meta-consciousness-and-the-Paradox-of-Introspection "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension." "..., I find this view antecedently unbelievable---a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense". Thomas Nagel - "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" - pg.128 Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor
Of course, since the most certain thing we can possibly know about reality is the fact that we really do exist as real persons, (Descartes, Chalmers), many militant Atheists try to ignore this fatal 'illusory' implication of their worldview and falsely claim that Atheistic Materialism can ground personhood. But that 'knee jerk' reactionary claim is false. Atheistic materialism simply cannot ground the abstract, "immaterial", concept of personhood.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
bornagain77_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

The only difference between you and me is that I do not require the existence of a non-existant mythical being to derive meaning for my life, or tell me how to lead my life.
Charles Darwin does not exist (in a material sense). You rely on him to derive meaning.Silver Asiatic_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Bob @ 30
I’m actually not sure suicide itself has to be morally wrong, but that’s not to say that I think suicide is a good thing.
It's not clear what you're saying here. Could you explain?
It’s easy to say that if you’re depressed you should seek help, but the very nature of depression makes it difficult to actually look for help.
I'm not trying to minimize the suffering that people encounter. But it's also true that people do not become entirely irrational even when suffering depression. Maintaining and building good mental health is a daily, on-going effort. It's not just something you do when you're out of control. Attending church, being part of a faith community, regular prayer and a growing relationship with God - these are all good mental health habits aside from the religious aspects. We know that Jesus suffered extreme depression during the crucifixion (and in his prayer in the garden) "My God, why have you forsaken me?" I will agree that we can't just run to a doctor every time we have anxiety or fear or despondency. In many cases the doctor cannot fix it anyway -- but God can (and does) heal. So, it's really a matter of turning to God for help in those times of despair. It is seeing the purpose and direction of one's life as being within God's plan.Silver Asiatic_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Allan Keith, actually it is fairly simple. Atheism entails a hopeless nihilism that drains life of any real meaning and purpose.
You misunderstand what being an atheist is. The only difference between you and me is that I do not require the existence of a non-existant mythical being to derive meaning for my life, or tell me how to lead my life. If you want to call that nihilism, that's fine. A more accurate description would be realism.Allan Keith_{June 11, 2018
June
06
Jun
11
11
2018
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply