Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scott Adams, American cartoonist and commenter on events with a particular view to persuasion and narrative dominance seems to agree. Transcript of key comments:

I think I’ve been telling you for some time the obvious way that these protests/riots/looting episodes were going to go. There was only one way that these would go under the assumption that the police would not get more aggressive and that the local government would not let the federal government come in and take care of the violent stuff. There was going to be no adult supervision and that was intentional. The local leadership decided to not have any adult leadership during the protests/riots/looting. So it was obvious that the locals would end up arming themselves because what else would happen? Could you think of any other outcome? It was obvious this would be the outcome. And this is just the beginning, not just a one-off. It’s pretty obvious that more militia or more citizens are going to bring heavier arms…and they’re going to start showing up…. There’s probably no way it’s going to stop.

The worst case scenario is if the protesters [–> further?] arm themselves…ultimately this is the way it had to go. I feel bad for anyone who gets hurt and I don’t encourage any violence but as a prediction this was the way it had to go. It will end, but with more of this.

Sobering, and familiar.

Regulars at UD will know that I have long been very concerned about a kinetic escalation/spiral in an ongoing 4th generation culture revolution style, Red Guards driven civil war in the USA, geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. Events over the past few days in Wisconsin (U/D: additional, here also see background here with here, here & here, contrasting what is not seen here) underscore that concern, to the level of juggernaut– out- of- control. (The first just linked seems to be at least a good point of reference for thought on a very regrettable but all too predictable event; the second gives background on the metaphor.)

Let me hark back for a moment to my 2016 global geostrategic framework shared here at UD (after public presentations here in the Caribbean):

That is deep backdrop, as we ponder where our civilisation is in the case of the lynch-pin state, the USA.

What happens to the US over the next six to eighteen months is fraught with global consequences that the general populace is at best dimly aware of; but, bet your last cent that movers and shakers behind the scenes have these considerations (from whatever perspective) in mind.

Now, too, for twenty years, I have often used a representation of sustainability-oriented strategic decision-making tracing to/adapted from the Bariloche Foundation of Argentina, set in the context of Environment Scanning and SWOT analysis:

(This is of course precisely the decision theory model which has led me to point to a serious ethics-epistemology breakdown in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and how treatments are evaluated.)

Further to such, there is a more stringent version, in effect the challenge of the juggernaut i/l/o Machiavelli’s hectic fever model of political disorders:

Warning-signs, there have been in abundance, complete with many blood-dripping lessons of history. However, in a deeply polarised polity, building critical mass . . . “consensus” is implausible and half-measure compromises will predictably be built-to-fail . . . in good time to avert going over the cliff is hard, hard, hard. Such, is the nature of problematiques.

Perhaps, the problem can be recast instructively in terms of the dilemmas implicit in the Overton Window:

What happens when the acceptable limit imposed by dominant factions and their narratives locks out good solutions? What would shift the window?

The answer comes back, pain; pain and shattering from going over the cliff.

Or, if we are lucky, enough see the signs in time to act as a critical mass towards sound change before the cliff-edge collapses underfoot.

History, however, is not on the side of prudent foresight, and the history of radical revolutions has been particularly bloody and predictably futile. Never mind the pipe dreams sold by tenured profs and promoted by pundits and community organisers. As just a warning, let us compare a fools-cap image from the 1966 Mao-backed Red Guards:

. . . and a notorious recent incident in Washington DC:

. . . not forgetting the tragedy of the man who refused to salute in 1930’s in a Germany ruled by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (and yes, contrary to the dominant narrative, they meant the “Socialist” part and the “Worker’s” part):

We need to pause and think again, I am somehow unable to take it for granted that we cannot turn back, even at the brink. Maybe, I am being irrationally hopeful for reprieve; but, let us at least ponder a case from an often overlooked classical report:

Ac 19:23 . . . [c. AD 57] there arose no little disturbance [in Ephesus] concerning the Way.

24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen.

25 These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said [–> behind the scenes manipulative plotting], “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26 And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

29 So the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed together into the theater, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians who were Paul’s companions in travel. 30 But when Paul wished to go in among the crowd, the disciples would not let him. 31 And even some of the Asiarchs,5 who were friends of his [–> they had charge of the very Temple in question; obviously, Paul’s lectures in the Hall of Tyrannos and his reaching out to people had won him respect and even friendship], sent to him and were urging him not to venture into the theater.

32 Now [in the unlawful assembly] some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together. 33 Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, whom the Jews had put forward. And Alexander, motioning with his hand, wanted to make a defense to the crowd.

34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

35 And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd ] –> doubtless, sent by the Asiarchs], he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky?6 [–> apparently a meteoritic object turned into an idol] 36 Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. 39 But if you seek anything further,7 it shall be settled in the regular assembly. 40 For we really are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” [–> in effect he hinted of the regiment doubtless camped not too far away; cf. the Nika riots under Justinian]

41 And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly. [ESV]

How easily, the democratic impulse deteriorates into the raging, out of control, manipulated, riotous, destructive mob!

And if there was no excuse for rioting under a lawful oligarchy (what the C1 Roman Empire had become, after failure of the Republic through envy, selfish ambition, assassination and civil wars leading to the rise of Octavian as Augustus), how much more so, is it inexcusable in any reasonably functional modern constitutional democracy?

I give a bit of context:

U/D: context:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

Further U/D, Sep 5, context of the seven mountains model for mapping society/culture/ civilisation and its main pillars of influence:

Governance is visibly failing, some think the mob will be appeased (it cannot), we are at cliff’s edge, with alarming cracks.

Can’t we stop before we go over the cliff?

Please . . . ? END

F/N, Sept 4: FTR, here is a clip of the actual transcript in the context of an incident where Mr Trump is routinely and falsely said to have endorsed Neo-Nazis etc as fine people:

It is obvious that this is precisely the sort of condemnation of neo-nazis that it is suggested Mr Trump has failed to give. That such tainting misrepresentation continues to be routinely promoted speaks volumes on disregard for truth and fairness. Notice, too, how he anticipated the progression from attacking statues of confederate leaders to American founders, with the obvious extension that cancel culture has no limits.

F/N2: Anatomy of a Red Guards Brigadista hit team/swarm in action, Portland USA:

(I add, Sep 6, while the above photo is already demonstrative of a coordinated murderous ambush, there is a video analysis here, UD can only embed YT. This event likely shows that both major front groups involved in the Red Guards brigadista insurgency are joined at the hip. For instance, the shooter had a BLM fist tattoo on his neck and declared himself 100% Antifa. His later suicide by shootout likely shows commitment to not be taken alive, i.e. he had knowledge of key information he judged worth guarding at the cost of his life. Modern interrogation techniques will credibly eventually “break” anyone.)

Let’s clip:

Portland Police are seeking help to identify a possible accomplice pictured here in the Portland Patriot Prayer member shooting. Here is a picture of the moments before the shooting. Notice the shooter is beginning to move as he draws his weapon, even though he does not have a sightline to the targets yet, and his position behind that cover would seem to be far enough back he could not otherwise have known his targets were hitting that position at exactly that moment. How did he know his targets were about to enter the killzone right then, and he needed to draw and begin moving? Even more interesting, in the criminal complaint on page 17, it points out he was initially walking with a woman in a white T-shirt, coming from one direction to that corner, and both were staring down the street at the targets who were a ways away, coming from a completely different place, as if the shooter and his partner had been told over the air to go there, and the targets they were about to shoot were coming from that direction, and they were identifying them. Once they got a bead on the targets, the woman stopped at the corner and loitered as he continued on and took cover in that alcove. Taking a corner gave her sightlines up and down all streets there, which would be second nature to the trained surveillance operative. And yet not having a sightline to the shooter, how would she communicate with him?  They were linked by radio. Look up behind the targets in the picture above, and you will see a lone guy who looks like the guy they are looking for. Notice his hand is covering his mouth just as the shooter begins to move, and the shooter is not holding a walkie talkie to receive any broadcast. It looks an awful like the guy behind the targets had taken surveillance command of the targets, he was trained enough that casually covering his lower face as he whispered into his chest was second nature, and he was radioing to the shooter who had an earpiece to receive, and probably a chest mic to transmit, triggering his movement at that moment, coordinating it to the targets. Also interesting, this new character may be surveillance aware enough he turned away from the surveillance camera as he came into view of it.

It takes a lot of time, recruitment effort, ideological motivation/desensitisation to morality, tactical training by experienced experts and rehearsal to run a complex hit like this. (For sure, this is no hothead running up to someone they hate and shooting in a rage, the surveillance cam shot demonstrates an orchestrated hit of the type used by Intel agency wet work teams or sophisticated terrorists. “mostly peaceful” and “protest” are off the table.)

That has to have a significant, years-long logistics trail, with face to face and communications networking, yielding traffic patterns.

So, this one case may be a break into what is now clearly a terrorist network.

Take it as a yardstick indicating the extent and depth of what is going on, a full-orbed 4th generation war insurgency backed by years of organisation and serious logistics, with carefully laid plans and organisation.

F/N3: And yes, “NAZI” lives don’t matter:

Clear intent to slander, brand and rob of right to life. Instead, we must recognise that life is the first right, without which there are no other rights. Therefore, we start with mutual respect and go on from there.

F/N4: U-Haul a Riot, Sept 2020

Comments
F/N: This is actually pivotal to the issue of undermining buttresses of sustainable liberty. We are looking at the roots of law and justice, so the basis for sound state order, civil law and policy. Indeed, we are looking at the undermining of rational responsible freedom also.The foundations of modern constitutional democracy are in the heart of these exchanges. And we were warned on the matches we were playing with. Now, the firestorm is upon us as a civilisation, with the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb as exhibit A we need to ponder how justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, how these four key terms are grounded and infused with meaning, and how the underlying moral government we cannot effectively deny is itself rooted. These are pivotal to the nature of our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
DS, really, now. There is a world of difference between Buchner's playing with Greek prefixes and French coinage to provide an argument with a swivel and an analysis on logic of being. You have no good grounds for implying that God is not a serious candidate necessary being. By comparison, the notorious flying spaghetti monster (too often seen in this general context) is not. The import on logic of being is that an actual NB is framework for a world to exist and so will be present in any actual world. You have had before you for instance twoness as a relevant case in point, there is no world where two began to exist, or can cease from so existing; two-ness, duality and so too distinct identity are framework to reality. I need not elaborate here on the centrality of the principle of identity which is for example foundational to Mathematics and so answers to Wigner on the astonishing power of Mathematics. That should have long since helped you to appreciate the power of an approach on logic of being and possible worlds. It is notorious, just from the historic and current existence of theism as a significant worldview live option as well as the need to ground responsible, rational, morally governed freedom, that the God of ethical theism is a serious candidate NB. Indeed, what do you think that Eternality of God's being is about as a core characteristic? Other things could be adduced but that should be suggestive. The logic that a serious candidate NB is either impossible or else actual is plain: what is credibly a candidate causally independent entity framework for a world either will be impossible or will be part of the fabric of reality. The line of argument you are taking suggests that you have no alternative reality-root candidate capable of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap. If you in fact have an alternative, kindly suggest ____ and provide warrant ____ . KF PS: A square circle . . . as given . . . has contradictory core characteristics and cannot exist in any possible world. Up to about 50 years ago, it was common to see atheists etc trotting out the problem of evil as claimed proof that God is impossible. As I noted, post Plantinga that has been clearly defeated. Thus your claim that it is hard to show such impossibility is actually an implicit concession on the point. That should be telling you something on the balance on merits.kairosfocus
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
PS:
to prove* that something is literally impossible?
*or to provide warrant for such a claim.daveS
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
KF, Ok, you have asserted that God is a SERIOUS CANDIDATE™ for necessary being. :-) Then if I say I believe that God probably does not exist, without warrant for believing your "CANDIDATE" is impossible, then I'm hyperskeptical. That's the stratagem. Do you see that it's vastly easier to propose "candidates" than it is to prove that something is literally impossible?daveS
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
JAD, a lot of people try the atheism is default view. Doesn't work. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
TF,
For example, you are not cartesian dualist, not hylemorphist and not monist (idealist or materialist flavour).
I said above that I don't know enough about the issue to choose a position. If I devoted a lot of time to studying it, I might end up in one of those categories, but I have other interests.daveS
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
DS, you have missed the point. Nowhere do I simply assert God is a necessary being, pulled out of a hat. What I have asserted is what is undeniable, he is a SERIOUS CANDIDATE NB. I then point out that such a serious candidate is either impossible of being [as a square circle is) ir else is actual. This last as NB's are framework for any possible world so if a candidate is possible it is present in at least one world and thus all. Where, given the nature of causal temporal worlds we need a NB root of reality as causal ground. In our world, we have morally governed creatures and post Hume and Euthyphro, we have a bill of requisites, that world root level reality must bridge IS and OUGHT. There is one serious candidate, something inherently good and utterly wise, capable of creating worlds and also necessary. We have a God-shaped bill of requisites and there is just one serious candidate. If you deny or doubt this, simply propose and warrant that there is another filling the bill of requisites ____ KF PS: If one claims to know that there is no God, s/he needs to solidly warrant such a strong knowledge claim. Likewise, given that God is a serious candidate NB, s/he needs to show that God is impossible of being. Formerly the problem of evils was trotted out to make that seem plausible but this has collapsed post Plantinga.kairosfocus
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
869 DaveS
My conclusion is that my position doesn’t fit comfortably in any of the three positions that have been brought up.
The problem with your position is that it's very difficult to understand (I am not intending to be rude or sarcastic). For example, you are not cartesian dualist, not hylemorphist and not monist (idealist or materialist flavour). There aren't more options available, so your position is almost impossible to be understood. :)Truthfreedom
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
JAD, There are no "defaults". There are simply true and false propositions.daveS
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus Excellent # 866.
For cause, we need a finitely remote adequate cause and sustainer of a world containing morally governed creatures — us.
A role that certainly can not and does not fulfill "natural selection."Truthfreedom
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
KF,
Notice, first denial of absolute knowledge of first principles, which would in key part be self-evident. The second builds on that and is clearly an epistemological view. An implicit fallacy is the notion that knowledge in responsible usage requires effectively absolute certainty. That would sweep away Science, Medicine, History, Economics, Management, commonsense day to day knowledge and even a lot of Mathematics. Instead, a weak form sense that knowledge is responsibly warranted (and so reliable), credibly true belief is a more accurate description.
And this is why I'm reluctant to identify as an agnostic. I'm not making any claims about how the truth of these matters is unknowable. If I identify as a "strong" atheist (or just "atheist" if you prefer), we know you will respond this way:
___, so-called weak form atheism is a rhetorical stratagem that fails to deal with the key challenge on the table. God is a serious candidate, necessary being world root. Such are either impossible of being or actual. What warrant do you have for your implied impossibility_____. Failing such, we have good reason to see that you are exaggerating the power of your hyperskepticism to disregard God.
You would assert that God is a necessary being, and demand warrant for my "implied claim". Of course it's not an implied claim, as I haven't said anything about necessary beings (*ahem* speaking of rhetorical stratagems). Well, you can demand whatever you want, but that's obviously not something I have. My position, simply, is that there are probably no gods. By that I mean I'm fairly confident of my conclusion, but not certain. And that's primarily due to lack of evidence (at least evidence accessible to me). My conclusion is that my position doesn't fit comfortably in any of the three positions that have been brought up (agnosticism, "weak" and "strong" atheism).daveS
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
My argument as to why atheism is logically fallacious is really very basic and straight forward. It appears to me that most of our naturalist/materialist interlocutors seem to think that their world view (WV) somehow wins by default. But does it really? When have any of them ever been able to prove their WV to be true? (If any of them have, I apparently missed it.) It appears to me that the only argument that they have is a fallacious argument from ignorance: No one has ever proved that God exists, therefore, God does not exist. However, the argument from ignorance is a two edged sword which cuts both ways. Here is a textbook example:
Ad ignorantium arguments (appeals to ignorance) have one of the following two forms: It has not been proved that P. [therefore] ~P. It has not been proved that ~P. [therefore] P. Here are two classic examples: SOLVED PROBLEM 8.20 What is wrong with these arguments? No one has ever proved that God exists [Therefore] God does not exist. No one has ever proved that God does not exist. [Therefore] God exists. Solution Both are fallacious appeals to ignorance. Nothing about the existence of God follows from our inability to prove God’s existence or nonexistence (i.e., from our ignorance about the matter).
(Schaum’s Outlines of Logic, 2nd Ed., p. 203) https://www.amazon.com/Schaums-Outline-Logic-Second-Outlines/dp/0071755462 Ironically, some atheistic naturalists try to discredit theism by fallaciously accusing theist’s of using the so-called God-of-the-gaps argument. Yes, some theist’s and ID’ist do make fallacious arguments but not every appeal to God or a designer is fallacious or God of the gaps. Indeed, naturalists/materialists are, more often than not, guilty of making a Nature or a Darwin of the gaps argument which is just as fallacious. So at the very least we can say that atheistic naturalism/materialism and theism are on more or less an equal footing. So for an atheist to argue that there is insufficient evidence for theism is logically fallacious. This raises some pertinent questions: (1) Is there any way to prove that your world view is true? Or, if not prove then (2) when it comes to competing world views A and B (such as theism and naturalism) how do we decide between them? I think there is which is why I am a theist.john_a_designer
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
851 Kairosfocus
with the quantum world walking up to deliver the shot of mercy.
I wanna hear the "bang." :)Truthfreedom
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
DS, Let's roll the tape on how this exchange started:
Sev, 846: >>Atheism is the position of disbelief in a deity on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Which specific fallacy is being committed in such a case?>> KF, 849: >>we start with your definition. Nope, you described an agnosticism claim. Atheists, properly, imply that they know enough to reject the reality of God. Where, as God is clearly a serious candidate necessary being root of reality, if God is possible, he exists in at least one possible world. However, by core characteristics, NB’s are framework to any world existing so if God is possible he is actual and in all worlds including ours. So, the atheistical claim is that God is impossible of being. Post Plantinga and the free will/morally governed (so, rational) creature defence, there is no even remotely plausible atheistical argument to the impossibility of God. The confident manner claims above collapse.>> Sev, 852: >>The word “atheism” embraces both the weak and the strong form. Weak atheism is what I asserted, strong atheism is the positive denial that gods exist.>> KF, 854: >>so-called weak form atheism is a rhetorical stratagem that fails to deal with the key challenge on the table. God is a serious candidate, necessary being world root. Such are either impossible of being or actual. What warrant do you have for your implied impossibility_____. Failing such, we have good reason to see that you are exaggerating the power of your hyperskepticism to disregard God.>>
In short, the matter is not as simple as you asserted by clipping 846 only. As I inferred from his epistemological, want of adequate warrant focus, Seversky was pushing the "weak" claim. That points to two issues, one the root of reality, serious candidate necessary being who grounds moral government. Two, the historical root with Buchner et al (and Darwin's reservations). Recall, Buchner and Aveling [Marx's de facto son in law, BTW) to Darwin, after mucking around in Greek grammer to make it seem plausible that non-belief on inadequate evidence is the relevant force of the French coinage on a Greek root and prefix . . . how often are awful things done with Greek:
suggestion was made that, after all, “Agnostic” was but “Atheist” writ respectable, and “Atheist” was only “Agnostic” writ aggressive. To say that one did not know was the verbal equivalent of saying that one was destitute of the god-idea, whilst at the same time a sop was thrown to the Cerberus of society by the adoption of a name less determined and uncompromising. At this he [Darwin] smiled and asked: “Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?”
Further to such, is the little matter of what knowledge is in weak common sense vs the projected utter certainty/absence of possibility of error form used to set up the argument. Utter absolute certainty in knowledge claims is only possible on our part for a relative few self-evident propositions similar to 2 + 3 = 5 or error exists or the principle of identity with its two close corollaries, LNC and LEM. Even a lot of Mathematics is hedged about, post-Godel. By exaggerating requisites of degree of warrant (esp. as regards classes of evidence available to us) we find lurking selective hyperskepticism. When in fact the overwhelming bulk of what we accept as knowledge is well warranted (so, reliable enough for "government work"), credibly (but not utterly certainly) true belief. In practical terms, we have good warrant sufficient to use on prudence and moral certainty such that it would be irresponsible to act as though X were false given degree of warrant attaching to X. Where, most of science, esp. explanatory constructs, cannot rise to the moral certainty standard, given the notorious pessimistic induction on scientific theories. In that context, we then face the reality root challenge. For cause, we need a finitely remote adequate cause and sustainer of a world containing morally governed creatures -- us. Where too, our very rationality is inextricably morally governed from first principles and duties up. Where, the root needs to be necessary (and so without beginning or end) being framework to any world existing. In which context, God is patently a serious candidate NB, which entails, either impossible as a square circle is impossible of being (mutually inconsistent core characteristics) or else present in at least one possible world. But as NB, framework to all PW's including this actualised one. That is, the real issue is whether God is possible of being. Once possible, actual. Atheism, strong, weak or whatever other form may be dreamed up, implies a knowledge claim, not on doubting or dismissing God's reality, but that he is impossible of being. Which, patently, is a horse of a different colour indeed. Formerly the so-called problem of evil was trotted out to make that seem plausible but post Plantinga informed atheists and fellow travellers keep away from that argument in serious contexts. For, there is no doubt that the free will defence is a powerful corrective to such thinking. That is, the properly phrased theistic set is coherent and suggests a plausible motive for there being a world with evils. Namely that a world of moral virtue and morally governed rational, responsible freedom must be a world of just that, freedom. So, the matter is more complex and more challenging to atheistical and agnostic views than is commonly recognised. Where, bound up in all of this is the matter of responsible rational freedom. We also see the acid at work, undermining buttresses of freedom with good order. The sandbars of Syrtis lie ahead on current track as we are caught up in the storm. We need a sea anchor and careful navigation if we are to make way to a haven. (Malta means, Haven, in Phoenecian, close enough to Hebrew to be instantly recognisable.) Will we founder on sandbars or will we be grateful to shipwreck at a haven? We need some good people in a storm, stat. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2020
September
09
Sep
29
29
2020
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
DS, agnosticism strictly is not dis-belief, active rejection but an epistemological position that one lacks adequate warrant to actively believe. That is, a fancy word for doubt. The issues come in on warrant accessible and the shading Dr Buchner championed in was it 1881. KF PS: AmHD again,
ag·nos·ti·cism (?g-n?s?t?-s?z??m) n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016
Notice, first denial of absolute knowledge of first principles, which would in key part be self-evident. The second builds on that and is clearly an epistemological view. An implicit fallacy is the notion that knowledge in responsible usage requires effectively absolute certainty. That would sweep away Science, Medicine, History, Economics, Management, commonsense day to day knowledge and even a lot of Mathematics. Instead, a weak form sense that knowledge is responsibly warranted (and so reliable), credibly true belief is a more accurate description. See the issue on how acids are eating away the buttresses of liberty? Sandbars of Syrtis are on the current track in the storm.kairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
KF,
Note, DIS-belief or denial, not mere absence of belief. Dis, implying active rejection not mere absence.
Hm, but then you called the position Seversky described agnosticism, despite, erm...
Atheism is the position of disbelief in a deity on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
daveS
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
DS, Let us note Am HD as recently as 2016:
a·the·ism (??th?-?z??m) n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. [French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dh?s- in Indo-European roots.] a?the·ist n. a?the·is?tic, a?the·is?ti·cal adj. a?the·is?ti·cal·ly adv. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016
Note, DIS-belief or denial, not mere absence of belief. Dis, implying active rejection not mere absence. The implication is a claim to well-warranted, informed disbelief or denial. But it is indubitable that a claim to non-belief on lack of warrant is made. Notice, slide to absence not active rejection. I give a telling context for this, a report by Aveling on his meeting with Darwin shortly before the latter died:
[Having been invited to lunch with Darwin and at the end of the meal with a Dr Büchner of Germany, withdrawing to Darwin's study, so] once we were within the walls of his study, and he was sitting in most unconventional fashion in the large, well-worn easy chair, almost the first thing he said was, "Why do you call yourselves Atheists?" . . . . It was pointed out that the Greek [ALPHA for not] was privative, not negative [--> playing with Gk prefixes, a- means normally, NOT-]; that whilst we did not commit the folly of god-denial, we avoided with equal care the folly of god-assertion: that as god was not proven, we were without god (atheoi) and by consequence were with hope in this world, and in this world alone . . . with point after point of our argument he agreed; statement on statement that was made he endorsed, saying finally: "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist." Upon this the suggestion was made that, after all, "Agnostic" was but "Atheist" writ respectable, and "Atheist" was only "Agnostic" writ aggressive. To say that one did not know was the verbal equivalent of saying that one was destitute of the god-idea, whilst at the same time a sop was thrown to the Cerberus of society by the adoption of a name less determined and uncompromising. At this he smiled and asked: "Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?"
This is the evident root of the matter. Dr Buchner was coming from an atheism conference convened in the UK. The root of my comment on stratagem should also be clear, and clear that it is warranted fair comment. A knowledgeable person should know s/he is so lacking in knowledge of reality at large and that arguments claiming to be disproofs of God are so fraught with peril that it is dubious to assert knowledge of the non-existence of God. Being "godless" normally means in rebellion against God and moral principles rooted in God. But shift to the ground of oh you have not good warrant for God to my satisfaction (and I am in a position to know) and one can seize benefit of a default without warrant. As in, you assert there IS a God, and bear burden to demonstrate such to arbitrarily high degree of warrant. I simply default to oh, without adequate evidence one should not trouble oneself unduly with fairy-tales. (And atheists have tried to contemptuously confront me in such terms, even face to face.) The answer is as already given: we represent a peculiar order of creature, morally governed rational responsible freedom. Whatever root of reality there is must be adequate to such. Infinite succession of finite causal-temporal stages is implausible, as is circular causation. The latter points to the obvious point that were there ever utter non-being, such would forever obtain as there is want of causal capability. Thus if a causal-temporal world now is, something of a different order always was, necessary being root of reality. Necessary being adequate to account for such peculiar creatures as we are. Thus, inherently good, utterly wise, with power, skill and knowledge to form worlds. Thus, by characteristics, God. So, God is not an arbitrary suggestion but is intimately connected to filling the bill for required reality root. Thence, we find the centrality of built in moral government by a law of our nature coeval with our being humans, rational, responsible, significantly free. Without which, we are not even equipped to argue. Notice, the debasement of mind. Sandbars of Syrtis ahead on track in the storm. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
KF,
Agnostics wishing to identify as atheists are failing a major epistemology and logic of being test, as already was outlined. KF
Whether this is accurate or not, it does not imply that weak atheism is merely a rhetorical stratagem.daveS
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Seversky, kindly note 859. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
UB, a very sobering point. For me the recognition of alphanumerical, algorithmic -- so, linguistic and goal-directed -- code in the living cell is already the SETI signal. We are not alone. Multiply by such being coeval with cell based life and we find that such life on earth is designed. Exponentiate by discovering that we live in a cosmos set at a deeply isolated operating point that enables C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life and it is instantly plausible that our world and its creatures are produced by an extra-cosmic designer of astonishing skill and power. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
DS, Let us start with, being a responsible, rational, significantly free being:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.
Of course, one may deny being rationally, responsibly, significantly free, As with say Alex Rosenberg:
Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. [--> So, just how did self-aware, intentional consciousness arise on such materialism? Something from nothing through poof magic words like "emergence" won't do.] Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>
That is a stance that reduces us to grand delusion. Including, Mr Rosenberg. No wonder, 90 years ago, Haldane counselled:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
So, atheism runs into a lot of trouble even before we get to contemplating the roots of reality. Here is a corrective, by Reppert:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
If we set aside the notion that we are not free enough to be rational and capable of warrant so we may have knowledge (which latter is presupposed by those who wish to contrast that we do not have enough to warrant the claim to know that God is, much less to have met and been transformed by him [of which there are so many millions that to doubt them all implies likelihood of grand delusion yet again]) we have to account for the first duties of reason and the existence of a world in which there are responsible, rational, morally governed creatures. Where, over three years we have sufficiently hammered out that the world cannot reasonably have traversed a transfinite past succession of cumulative, causally-temporally successive stages to reach to now. (That would be atheists end up implying such a bizarre claim as a past-infinite causal-temporal succession of cumulative stages [let's call them years for convenience] is already a red flashing light.) This plausibly requires a finitely remote being of a different order from the familiar, composite, contingent entities, a necessary being world root. And not just that, one adequate to account for a world inhabited by creatures sufficiently free to be rational, thus morally governed. After Hume's Guillotine and Euthyphro's dilemma are duly noted, such a being must be inherently good and utterly wise as well as awesomely powerful enough to be root-cause of our world. Where, necessary being implies eternality. If you doubt this last, kindly explain to us a world from a true nothing, utter non-being with no causal powers, or the equivalent, a future state reaching back to cause itself. or, explain to us how a world could be in which say two-ness i.e. the reality we term the number two (a corollary of the principle of distinct identity) does not already exist, or begins to exist or ceases from being. Our existence as responsible, rational, morally governed creatures -- before we look at signs of design and whatnot -- already strongly warrants inference to the only serious candidate reality root that can readily account for such peculiar creatures as we are. This is of course not a deductive proof, it is inference to best warranted explanation. Namely, the inherently Good, utterly Wise Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This brings us full circle to the implications of the widespread breakdown of reasoning and recognition of first duties of reason that has led our civilisation to our present peril. For, among the duties are duties to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, thus fairness and justice. In short, to built in law of our nature coeval with our being human. Thence, just civil law accountable before the bar of justice. In Cicero's summary of the consensus view in De Legibus, penned 100 years before Paul would write to then visit Rome:
“Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
It is precisely this insight that grounded modern self-government of a free people through understanding that justice duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities; as may be readily ascertained from say the US DoI, 1776 and the Constitution that sought to deliver on its bill of requisites. So, too, as that understanding has progressively been debased and denied then dismissed, no wonder the buttresses of constitutional democracy have been progressively undermined to today's point of mortal danger. Hence, our peril. On present course in the storm, we are heading for the sand bars of Syrtis. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
DS, rhetoric drives pistis, rhetorical proof, leading to a faith-point. Agnostics wishing to identify as atheists are failing a major epistemology and logic of being test, as already was outlined. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
. Reasoning? Seversky’s protectionist reasoning ::
UB: Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements? Seversky: I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system. What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.
So the only thing that can motivate a decision away from your preferred position is if it can be proven that the origin of life is not possible by any unknown natural cause. We can talk about the posture of your answer in a moment, but first we need to point out the 600lb gorilla hiding behind the curtains. You are using a non-falsifiable condition as your standard of evidence in a scientific question. You’ve set up a situation where the hypothesis you are opposed to must prove a negative or the evidence in favor of that hypothesis is given no value because it does not meet the threshold. Only the proof of a negative is given the capacity to change your position. This is entirely illegitimate reasoning. Of course, no one can force you to use valid reasoning in your beliefs; that is generally something that only comes when it is actually valued by the person doing the reasoning. But you clearly cannot stand firm and suggest that your conclusions were arrived at with anything even resembling sound judgement. That is simply not true. Likewise, when you say that you “accept” opposing evidence (such as Von Neumann and others) it is also simply not true. Under your reasoning, the evidence for your opposition can continue to pile up to the rafters while the evidence in favor of your preferred position remains at zero. Until that opposing evidence proves a negative (something it cannot do) then it does not have the power to affect your conclusion. Physical evidence, indeed, becomes meaningless. This is the ultimate protectionist shield against science and reason; demand something that is not logically possible as your standard for evidence. The bonus is that you get to say you are a person of science and reason, while concealing the fact that you’ve completely eviscerated both of everything they have to offer.
Upright BiPed
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
KF,
weak form atheism is a rhetorical stratagem that fails to deal with the key challenge on the table.
Nonsense. It's the honest position some of us have arrived at, recognizing our own very limited knowledge and powers of reason. I want to stress that I'm not the least bit interested in convincing anyone of my position, so I don't spend much time debating the existence of god in earnest. People such as TF sometimes post ridiculous statements about atheists (presumable weak or strong) which merit a response. Although it's usually SIWOTI. :PdaveS
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
852 Seversky
Of course, Sam Harris in his book Letter to a Christian Nation
Wow. You atheists have such a group of intellectuals on your side. Dawkins, Coyne... A competition of clowns.
Atheism is nothing more
Than frustrated and annoying children that don't like their toys. And adults have to spank you.Truthfreedom
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Sev, so-called weak form atheism is a rhetorical stratagem that fails to deal with the key challenge on the table. God is a serious candidate, necessary being world root. Such are either impossible of being or actual. What warrant do you have for your implied impossibility_____. Failing such, we have good reason to see that you are exaggerating the power of your hyperskepticism to disregard God. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Folks, I am led to see that it is absolutely pivotal to recognise that unless we are genuinely free, we cannot be free enough to think. That which is free is self-moved, en-souled in Plato's terms. Likewise, morally governed. There is a key self-evident aspect, that is laden with import for the nature of reality:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.
We draw this out on one facet through Epictetus:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
Paul of Tarsus, here recognises the power of the principle of identity:
1 Cor 14: 6 Now, brothers,1 if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?
These are pivotal to addressing what we have been undermining. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/849
Sev, we start with your definition. Nope, you described an agnosticism claim. Atheists, properly, imply that they know enough to reject the reality of God.
The word "atheism" embraces both the weak and the strong form. Weak atheism is what I asserted, strong atheism is the positive denial that gods exist. Of course, Sam Harris in his book Letter to a Christian Nation challenges the necessity for the term at all.
In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs
Seversky
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
TF, I tend to note that on God as necessary, reality root being, mind comes before matter and calls it into existence. Accordingly, I don't take seriously schemes that huff and puff about mind or soul vs matter. Especially when the evident solidity of matter is a matter of field interactions and mostly empty space. Materialism is under siege and the outlook is grim: self-referentially incoherent, unable to account for rationality and responsibility, with the quantum world walking up to deliver the shot of mercy. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
ET, UD is not generally about Christian theology, but it seems a few remarks are apt. It is patent that western civilisation as we know it in the main comes from the Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, with the key onward Germanic injection of a strong emphasis on rights and freedoms that form a due balance with duties to shape our understanding of justice. So, the synthesis first embodied in a tent-making Rabbi from a Greek Uni town who was Rabbi Gamaliel's greatest student and a Roman Citizen is absolutely central to understanding our civilisation. Which brings in a key Greek contribution: unifying intelligible synthesis as a core of the rational part of our worldview. Today, we tend to despise synthesis, even among the learned. Things like totalising metanarrative and radical relativism tied to hyperskepticism are real problems. As a result we are haunted by incoherence and just plain self-falsifying contradictory schemes of thought. In that context, the triune view of God is part of systematised theology that seeks to faithfully, accurately capture the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The Nicene Creed is the first such and it is a well founded document. There are many misconceptions regarding that view of God, I usually point people to the apocryphal tale of St Patrick and the Shamrock and to the shield of faith as a first point of reference. But then, I am a very visual thinker. The key point of emphasis is the relevance of synthesis. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 32

Leave a Reply