Sometimes, one of UD’s frequent objectors makes an inadvertently telling objection that deserves highlighting in order to publicly document what we are up against. In this case, AK has provided us with TWO, as headlined. Accordingly, over the past several days, I responded in the Skeptical Review thread. This morning, on seeing doubling down, I have further responded and I now highlight for all to see:
KF, 125: >> . . . let us go back to your context from 64 above: “the ID technique [–> that’s already a Big Lie agit prop tactic and slander] that you excel at called the Gish Gallop [–> diagnostic, terrible sign], made famous by Duane Gish and others [–> root-slander]” and again at 100 above: “evil is a concept fabricated by religion.”
Before anything else, I note this is an attempt to relativise and dismiss the reality of evil and to side-step two significant developments. First, that while up to the 50’s – 70’s the appeal to the problem of evils was a favourite tactic of atheists to try to dismiss the reality of God. But after Plantinga’s highly successful free will defense [–> cf. PS below] was put on the table the deductive form collapsed and the inductive one was broken in its impact. But of course, some of us are old enough to remember and to bear witness.
The second matter turns on recognising what evil is, as a secondary phenomenon:
EVIL: the frustration, twisting, perversion or privation of what is good in itself that prevents or hampers it from attaining its proper end. A proper end that is often naturally evident. Such as, that our minds are properly aimed at and governed by truth and linked correct, cogent reasoning and duties to the just, the good, the prudent, the wise, etc.
As WmAD famously highlighted from Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, that issue is the problem of good:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .
I doubt that you would as cavalierly assert through the confident manner fallacy: evil [–> GOOD] is a concept fabricated by religion . . .
But the two are inextricably intertwined, indeed evil parasites off the good and much of its repugnance when its destructive effects are manifest for all to see comes from its patent violation and frustration of what is a manifest proper end.
And so, we can hardly but observe that you are forced to appeal to our sense of duty to truth, justice and more, even as you work as a saw-tooth cutting away at our connexion to the root of such things.
Now, Rational Wiki (and no I will not link the source, do your own search):
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.” [U/D May 16: Subsequently RW updated their definition to speak of “weak arguments.” This is itself problematic (as, in inductive contexts arguments may mutually reinforce as a cumulative case and “weakness” is often a matter of opinion, especially when tendentious charges of “half truth” and out of context or distorted quotes or the notion that you cannot use an expert’s admission against interest are in play) and it turns out that Ms Scott suggested misleading citation and used “half truth” — a half truth being a whole lie — right from the beginning. As at May 15, 2018, Wikipedia used: “During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.” The term is clearly tainted with invidious insinuations and attacks to the man. It should not be used, especially as it is already a case of attacking a man, by its very name.]
Each tooth of a saw cuts a tiny curlicue of sawdust, but with many teeth going zip-zip-zip, soon a pile of sawdust tells how much of a cut has been given. (That is how mass-mobilisation agit prop activism cumulatively wreaks havoc.)
Now, too, before I speak more specifically, remember my metaphor just above on the cumulative impact of corrosive polarising slander and cutting off the roots of our civilisation — noting, the dismissive genetic fallacy on evil also made by you, AK: one tooth of a zipping saw does not do much, it seems, from how tiny a sawdust shaving is. But once we see many teeth in action, the cumulative effect is huge as the sawdust pile grows and grows and grows zip-zip-zip, especially if the branch we are sitting on is under strain and has to bear all of us.
Then, beyond a certain unpredictable point, a critical threshold is hit and CRAACK, SNAP, COLLAPSE.
Too late, bitterly too late.
Where, we are dealing with a civilisation that — having nukes — is far too dangerous to fail safely.
In that light, AK’s strawman tactic of twisting my words into:
Civilization is going to come crashing down because I used the term “Gish gallop” . . .
. . . only manages to show the sort of destructive blindness caused by evil and in accumulation, the zipping saw at suicidal work in our civilisation may well precipitate the unthinkable.
FYI, AK, you sheared off one little curlicue of sawdust from the branch on which we are all sitting. You did this by a doubly slanderous reference. Which, I called you on, and which you show no signs of due responsiveness and responsibility over. And indeed, making that particular reference is a serious sign of how far the rot has progressed in a particular case.
I don’t know if we can wake up from the stupor of a Plato’s Cave suicidal horror show already in progress, but that will take a miracle of mass repentance.
This I do know, our civilisation is in self-induced mortal peril, and the saws are busily zipping away with destructive agit prop cutting us off from the root and support that are vital for our civilisation to thrive.
Not that the blinded, benumbed and polarised will be particularly inclined to wake up to, face and do something about our common peril.
Now, here is my longstanding response to the Gish-smear slander, here at UD (and no it is not a threat to ban, in answer to yet another twister of facts and issues out there):
In short, this term [= Gish gallop] is an accusation of lying, distorting and the like on a wholesale basis, further allegedly in order to overwhelm an opponent and thus prevent answering the flood of falsehoods.
Something is very wrong here, however, even after taking the questionable list of sources cited at face value for the moment, for the sake of discussion.
For, it is well known that to select several examples of actual falsehood or gross error and to expose them normally suffices to ground the conclusion that the party who has actually indulged such a flood of false assertions, is not responsible or credible and should be dismissed.
One slice of such a spoiled cake has in it all the ingredients, and all that.
In short, if the accusation were TRUE, it would be quite easy to overturn such an argument.
It would fail so spectacularly, that it would be rhetorically suicidal.
Provided, the other side of the debate or discussion were in command of the actual facts, not mere ideological talking points and disputable opinions.
So, it is quite plain that there is no real need for such a named fallacy.
And, in the case of Mr Gish, it is well known that he consistently won debates on origins science by focussing on the problem that the fossil record is full of gaps that lead to a want of on-the-ground evidence for body-plan level macroevolution. [Kindly, see the linked discussion of the real facts, — let me now use the unlimited number of links capacity of an OP: “here is Ken Ham’s summary of the relevant history, and here and here we may see John Morris of ICR on debates. It is to be noted that Creationist spokesmen, for forty years, have actively sought debates, and have had such a long-running pattern of success, that it is the advocates of body-plan level Macro-Evolution by blind chance and necessity who have counselled their colleagues not to participate in debates. As a result, while Gish seems to have taken part in some 300 – 400 debates and Henry Morris some 100, such are reportedly rare today.”]
Nobody wins 300+:0 public debates, inducing opponents to find excuses to dodge further debates and to smear the debater unless he stands on solid facts and cogent reasoning. In this case, were [neo-] darwinist evolutionary theory even roughly true, 250+k fossil species in museums and the billions of further readily seen fossils in the field [e.g. Barbados, where I have lived, is literally built out of layers of fossil limestone, often in the form of corals] would overwhelm us with gradualism of body form transformation as a dominant, obvious pattern. Instead, as Gould et al inadvertently highlighted by championing Punctuated Equilibria, the actual pattern is one of systematic gaps and persistent absence of the roots of the tree of life icon — OoL by blind watchmaker mechanisms. That’s why we see so many evolutionary just so stories in the textbooks, the museums, the documentaries and the literature.
By utter contrast, we may answer the slanders against ID simply and directly.
On a trillion directly observed cases [including your objecting comments above, which are meaningful text strings], functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information — FSCO/I for handy short — is a highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration [= design] as relevant cause. This is backed up by the search challenge posed by blind chance and mechanical necessity driven needle in haystack search for configuration spaces that start at the 500 to 1,000 bit threshold of complexity. That is, such a search challenge overwhelms sol system or observed cosmos scale resources, given 3.27*10-150 to 1.07*10^301 and sharply up possibilities, overwhemingly non-functional gibberish.
The only empirically warranted, analytically plausible cause of FSCO/I is design.
PS: Let me excerpt here a short summary [scroll down here] of Plantinga’s reply to the problem of evil:
>>Leading design theorist and philosopher-theologian William Dembski helps us put the intellectual forms of the problem of evil in context, by citing the sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . .
The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” [“Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate,” Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
In short, when we come to core worldview problems, we should address the comparative difficulties of the main alternatives, and make our choice on which difficulties it is better to live with.
Plantinga’s free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction:
1. God exists
2. God is omnipotent – all powerful
3. God is omniscient – all-knowing
4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good
5. God created the world
6. The world contains evil
To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of — but obviously does not eliminate — evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1.
Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist.
However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that:
2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos.
Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ?
In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses.
Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense — was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6.
The essence of that defense is:
“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.]
Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul:
Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV]
Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds, there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say Gordon, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.)
Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible.
At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table.
It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no un-absorbed evils, even though the a-theologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs.
However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making.
Where then does the problem of evil stand today?
On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him. >>
PPS: For reference, the seven mountains model:
. . . also, the window of change/change challenge model:
. . . and the Overton Window, double-BATNA model:
H’mm, I feel prompted to add this, on the SWOT-BAU vs. ALT solution strategy (which ideally works by bringing a cross-section of stakeholders . . . including hitherto marginalised ones . . . to the table to ponder together a wall-sized version of the chart and use ZOPP-style contributions to collaboratively synthesise a solution-strategy):
PPPS: I tracked down the source and confirm the slander. I clip for record from another thread (on somebody’s review of Darwin’s Doubt):
KF, 151:>>I took time out to track down the essay where the ideas are introduced by Ms Scott. The taint [of slander] I pointed out is there from the outset. Ms Scott complains on citing Gould on the trade secret of paleontology, then says:
Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters at presenting these half-truth non-sequiturs that the audience misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time.
[–> she later contradicts herself on this point, arguing for a tight time debate format that locks out substantiating the big picture problem that is at stake; surely, 45 minutes and what a 20 – 30 minute rebuttal is a lot of time, especially after hundreds of debates have been done and books have been published so the substance is no surprise. BTW, Creation Scientists Answer their critics is a key part of that literature, as well as Gish’s Fossils say no series]
And you never have enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain erroneous statements that creationists can come out with. Even if you deal with a handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed out by your opponent, your audience is left with the , “Yeah, but…” syndrome: well, maybe there are intermediate forms and the creationist was wrong about radiometric dating, YEAH, BUT why didn’t that evolutionist answer the question about polonium halos?” (or some other argument.)
[–> Thin gruel. If one has solidly broken several key cases AND has laid out the positive evidence that actually shows by clear observed case the pattern of body-plan level macroevo that surely is there all across the fossil record, the other side should be shattered. Oh, maybe, the point is, that from molecular machines in the cell to major body plans, there is a systematic pattern of gaps and islands of function isolated by gaps without functional forms . . . in which case Gish and co clearly have a point, one the public has a RIGHT to hear.]
The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format. And the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of the audience no matter what . . . .
[–> suspicion that a case has not been made on the empirical merits, substantiating the arguments by icon?]
Now, there are ways to have a formal debate that actually teaches the audience something about science, or evolution, and that has the potential to expose creation science for the junk it is. This is to have a narrowly-focused exchange in which the debaters deal with a limited number of topics. Instead of the “Gish Gallop” format of most debates where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error
[–> see the contradiction? What about the cross-complaint that YEARS of schooling, hundreds of hours of TV time, acres of museum space and more are used to indoctrinate and it is complained that there should never be a forum where both sides can make the case they have in summary at feature article length or book chapter length?]
that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate, the debaters have limited topics and limited time.
There is much that is utterly wrong with this essay, for reasons already highlighted and in part noted in-quote.
In particular, a torrent of half-truths is a thinly veiled way of saying reams of lies. For, a half-truth is a whole lie.Including twisted quotation — as I was accused of above. I here substantiate that my concern was there from the beginning, though Ms Scott is a bit more genteel than the raw statement in Rational Wiki which I found years ago on first encountering this pseudo-fallacy.
Where spewing reams of half-truths, lies, distorted dishonest quotes etc is an actual problem, any half-decent lawyer knows that if you pick out several points of error, and properly expose falsity and deceit or even just incompetence, the credibility of the other side is shattered.
So, the rhetorical premise Scott offers is fundamentally false.
Her claims about Creationists dodging narrow formats is also misleading, as in fact the claimed gradualism is a matter of a wide array of evidence relative to 150 years of fossils, with a broad pattern that should be there but is not. That’s Gould’s famous trade secret. And no it’s not just rates, the rates issue [as is suggested in Punctuated Equilibria] was put up to explain the gaps. The systematic gaps.
So, the core point is there, right from the beginning. The term is tainted, it insinuates deceitful insincerity and manipulation of the public. Even, going so far as to suggest that a format that gives time to make the case is calculated to get away with in effect public education fraud.
I am reminded of the what, six year old offer here at UD that we would publish an up to 6,000 word or so (the limit is generous and flexible, where at 120 WPM that is 50 minutes of speech, about the times in question) essay that would outline and substantiate the core blind watchmaker thesis case for ooL and tree of life. Links can go elsewhere but the case as a summary must be made in the essay. After a year of pursuing it, no satisfactory submission was received from the penumbra of objector sites.
That is relevant to the credibility of the argument Ms Scott made. No, I do not buy the claim, for cause.
Coming back to the core point, it is clear that “Gish gallop” is loaded to the point of slander and should not be used. it boils down to saying that if one puts up a sustained, lecture length or magazine feature article length argument with many sources, using expert testimony against interest one is a liar and misquoter, pretty automatically.
That is patently false and unjustifiably accusatory.
It is time this was set aside.
And, web searches show the term is now being migrated into making even more loaded political points in what is in effect a policy opinion verbal war that is deeply poisoning the atmosphere for discussion.
Something is wrong here, seriously wrong.
Something connected to the obvious ongoing suicide of our civilisation.
It is time to turn back before the crumbling cliff’s edge collapses underfoot.>>
Comments
Bill Cole,
How do you know?
It is merely my opinion based on my interpretation of the evidence available to me. Just as your interpretation of the evidence available to you informs your opinion that his teachings are based on a higher truth. The fact that we differ may be as simple as the likelihood that we are each working from an incomplete set of evidence, viewed from different contexts.Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
AK
Who said that we are? I was just saying that Jesus’ teachings do not reflect any higher truth.
How do you know?bill cole
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Mung,
Why are atheists seeking a world of truth,...
Who said that we are? I was just saying that Jesus' teachings do not reflect any higher truth. As would be the case when there is no higher truth.Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Why are atheists seeking a world of truth, beauty and light and why can't they face the fact that evolution can't provide it?Mung
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
LocalMinimum,
Can you provide some of these?
This is probably the most obvious one:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
There is also this one:
"Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You".
But maybe that is because I am not as forgiving as Jesus.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
But don't misunderstand. I have no problem with people who accept these as ways to live their lives. I just don't accept them as reflecting any higher truth.Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
AK @ 37:
There are some of his teachings that I do not agree with.
Can you provide some of these?LocalMinimum
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Blip,
Allan, you know fully well that manipulation is meant negatively, not whichever way you wish so you can have your out in a tight spot.
Actually, manipulation is used for altruistic as well as selfish reasons. Politicians do it, activists do it, church leaders do it, parents do it.
So if thinking through things isn’t so hard for you, I suggest you stop recommending it and you start actually doing it. You haven’t as of yet.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
After giving an initial, honest, if not well thought through, answer about your impression of Jesus, you put yourself in a compromising corner. Because you claim he is a good role model
You must read for comprehension. I said that he was a good role model, for the most part. There are some of his teachings that I do not agree with.
But he also said he is God although you say you can forgive the delusion, without having explained where the delusion lies. More assumptions on your part?
Firstly, I said that I assumed he was being manipulative, or delusional. Personally, I think that being manipulative is the more likely of the two. Secondly, if he was delusional, how would I know where his delusions came from? Schizophrenia is a possibility, but that is just a guess.
And he never takes God to task for the slaughter of so many that God commanded to slaughter. Unlike you. What’s this, a blind spot on the part of Jesus?
He was Jewish and trying to convince other Jews to modify the way they think about god and worship him. In short, to be less judgmental of others. How far do you think he would have gotten if he had thrown out all of the existing Jewish teachings?
Maybe he is trying to cover up something?
You would have to ask him.
Still a good role model for you, Allan?
Because of the many good things he did and taught, absolutely. I also think that Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Malala are all very good role models, even though they are very different and I don't share any of their religious beliefs. A role model need not be perfect. In fact, I think the fact that they aren't perfect makes them better role models.
The fact remains that Jesus doesn’t offer you the comfortable option of thinking of him as a nice role model.
Who cares? Good role models don't ask to be role models. They are role models because of how they live their lives.
And where did you get the idea Jesus is good anyway?
All I have to go on are the things written about him. Same as you.Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
For me, the current state of humanity has been eloquently summed up by the poet Christopher Fry, in 'A Sleep of Prisoners"
The human heart can go the lengths of God…
Dark and cold we may be, but this
Is no winter now. The frozen misery
Of centuries breaks, cracks, begins to move;
The thunder is the thunder of the floes,
The thaw, the flood, the upstart Spring.
Thank God our time is now when wrong
Comes up to face us everywhere,
Never to leave us till we take
The longest stride of soul we ever took.
Affairs are now soul size.
The enterprise
Is exploration into God.
Where are you making for? It takes
So many thousand years to wake,
But will you wake for pity’s sake!Charles Birch
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
F/N: I need to highlight strategic change issues, so I added a PPS to the OP on the Seven Mountains model, the window of opportunity for change and the Overton Window-BATNA framework. Will we find critical mass to turn back before we go over the cliff as a civilisation? Even, with nukes on the loose? (Let us not forget that on the eve of WW1, many in the great powers realised how ruinous a great war would be. They still went over the cliff.) KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
PS: Let me cite Rom 1:
Rom 1:1 Paul, a [a]bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle (special messenger, personally chosen representative), set apart for [preaching] the [b]gospel of God [the good news of salvation], 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the sacred Scriptures— 3 [the good news] regarding His Son, who, as to the flesh [His human nature], was born a descendant of David [to fulfill the covenant promises], 4 and [as to His divine nature] according to the Spirit of holiness was openly designated to be the Son of God with power [in a triumphant and miraculous way] by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
5 It is through Him that we have received grace and [our] apostleship to promote obedience to the faith and make disciples for His name’s sake among all the Gentiles, 6 and you also are among those who are called of Jesus Christ to belong to Him;
7 [I am writing] to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called to be saints (God’s people) and set apart for a sanctified life, [that is, set apart for God and His purpose]: Grace to you and peace [inner calm and spiritual well-being] from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ . . . .
16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation [from His [--> justly, richly deserved] wrath and punishment] to everyone who believes [in Christ as Savior], to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed in a way that awakens more faith]. As it is written and forever remains written, “The just and upright shall live by faith.”
18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them.
20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.
21 For even though [d]they knew God [as the Creator], they did not [e]honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for [f]an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their own hearts to [sexual] impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], 25 because [by choice] they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading and vile passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural [a function contrary to nature], 27 and in the same way also the men turned away from the natural function of the woman and were consumed with their desire toward one another, men with men committing shameful acts and in return receiving in their own bodies the inevitable and appropriate penalty for their wrongdoing.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity].
32 Although they know God’s righteous decree and His judgment, that those who do such things deserve death, yet they not only do them, but they even [enthusiastically] approve and tolerate others who practice them. [AMP]
Food for thought.kairosfocus
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
Blip,
thanks for onward thoughts, which give context that is illuminating.
I suspect, we have a deeper, cultural agenda and dominant worldview problem multiplied by the sort of obvious bigotry corrected in the OP. And yes, that is a strong word but it is an apt one when we see the attitude to slander and dismissive stereotyping exposed in the exchanges above multiplied by resistance to correction.
When a culture in large part turns from light it once had and puts in its place Plato's Cave shadow-shows that are rooted in clearly self-referentially incoherent and amoral schemes of thought such as evolutionary materialistic scientism . . . which cannot even deal with the conscious, rational, responsible freedom that is a necessity for genuine reasoning, warranting, knowing and moral guidance of the life of the mind under duties to truth, the right, etc, something is wrong.
When we see willingness to substitute the inherent blindness of computation for conscious, rational, insightful contemplative reflection, something more has gone wrong. Notice, the notion that consciousness, mindedness and conscience somehow have to emerge from computational substrates; driven by the imposition of said evolutionary materialism -- never mind the fairly obvious self referential incoherences that rapidly emerge.
It is not for nothing that J B S Haldane warned:
"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.)]
Notice, too, how institutions, education, media, professions and more have been corrupted to sustain and enable the ongoing worst holocaust in history: the slaughter of inconvenient living posterity in the womb at a current global rate (per Guttmacher and the UN) of about a million further victims per WEEK, cumulatively 800+ millions in 40+ years. With that amount of mass bloodguilt corrupting consciences, minds, professions, institutions, law, media, courts, government, our whole moral framework and foundation HAVE to be seriously warped and undermined. That is why our judgement, collectively, is so undermined that every species of perversity and pathology now openly parades around demanding recognition of 'rights.'
But, given moral government of the mind and of decision and action, we cannot justly demand of people that they enable us in the wrong and destructively pathological. To properly claim a right, one must first be in the right or one imperils the civil peace of justice. For, justice is based on the due balance of rights, freedoms, duties and responsibilities in the community, families and individual lives. That is why it is so significant to see how the my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins principle is being neglected, creating an ever widening polarisation and struggle on the nihilistic premise that might and manipulation make 'right' 'rights' 'truth' 'warrant/justification' 'knowledge' 'science' and more.
All of which points to shipwreck.
But those who have seized power under such circumstances (through subversion of the cultural high ground institutions per the canons of cultural marxism -- see the seven mountains model of that pattern of dominance) have substituted power and cynical manipulation for reason and moral suasion on principles. We are thus reduced to a power clash, fighting uphill against deeply entrenched fortifications manned by the utterly ruthless.
When things are entrenched like that, the historic evidence is, things have to be broken to the point where obvious failure and pain leading to cognitive dissonance overwhelm the defences so that culturally there is a forced search for an alternative. That's what happened, turn of the '90's with marxism-leninism and the bloc of nations caught up under that prison of nations. To reach there 100+ millions lost their lives. The other lot of forgotten dead in a forgotten holocaust in living memory. This past century of high-tech neo-barbarism has been one of the worst on record. A lesson on what happens when powerful, ruthless men systematically dismiss and forget God. Putting in God's place idols of pseudo-scientific utopianism and political pseudo-messianism. Predictable shipwreck that we could have realised had we bothered to take the summary in Rom 1 seriously. (And don't get me started on Paul, true founder of modern Christianised Western Civilisation by his synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome. Oh, apostate Christendom, look to your sources!)
Ironically, despite the pretty direct evidence of Venezuela and the many witnesses to the utter failure of such systems, marxist schemes are re-emerging as a favoured ideology today, most often in forms tied to cultural marxism. Indeed, answering the question, what is a community organiser of the Chicago school founded by Saul Alinsky et al will be an illuminating experience in itself.
My problem is, nukes are on the loose, this is not a time when we should be sawing away zip zip zip at the moral roots of the branch on which we collectively sit.
And yet, for no good reason, that is exactly what we are seeing.
Those sawing away imagine that they are enlightened and project to us all sorts of stereotypes that polarise and lock out re-thinking what they are doing. Yet, in demonstrable fact, they are deeply endarkened instead.
Plato's parables of the cave and of the mutinous ship of state is far more relevant than we want to think.
But, how many are willing to learn lessons from the collapse of Athens? How many have even paid slightest heed to the history? Does a name like Alcibiades even ring a bell of warning?
Much less, how many would pay heed to a high-point of the greatest sermon ever preached -- preached by that same Jesus of Nazareth so many would despise and dismiss or else would try to take captive and tame today:
Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body; so if your eye is clear [spiritually perceptive], your whole body will be full of light [benefiting from God’s precepts]. 23 But if your eye is bad [spiritually blind], your whole body will be full of darkness [devoid of God’s precepts]. So if the [very] light inside you [your inner self, your heart, your conscience] is darkness, how great and terrible is that darkness! [AMP]
KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
Agreed. The problem of evil is definitely real from an experiential perspective, but only if we are willing to believe in good, as everyone naturally does, even unrepentant atheists, against the very fabric of the cherished philosophy. And once the good is let in by the atheist, it becomes an insurmountable problem for him/her. That is, if honesty prevails. Why is there good? Atheistic materialism is not capable of addressing this. It is a problem far more difficult for the atheist than the problem of evil for the Christian and far too difficult for atheism to address. But to say so is for the atheist to admit defeat. So it will never be said. Unless honesty prevails. But if not, then begin the obfuscations, the ad hominem attacks, the snarky remarks, the changing of the subject and definitions of words. But all the effort leaves a very visible serpentine trail of emotional rebellion and cowardice, quite frankly. That about defeat!
But it doesn't have to be that way.
I should know, for I was once an atheist myself. One thing that saved me through the nightmare was that I wanted to know the truth and I was not interested in having a soap box from which to pounce on theists or anyone else for that matter. Life just seemed to always leave me behind and I wanted to understand why. In other words, I honestly wanted to know truth, if there were such a thing.
And I came to know. Not by any superior effort or quality on my part. Not my doing in the least. All I can take credit for is a brokenness on my part, a willingness to admit it, a desire to move on if at all possible. That's it, if that much.
I do wish Allan and others on this site who tend to be of like mind, would seriously consider what is being said here, for there is a lot to learn, for their own good. And should any of them be willing to seriously challenge himself on the central point, should he come to see the error of his ways and say so, no one will think the worse of him. We all start at this point. On the contrary, he would be encouraged to learn more and all would be grateful for his change.
The atheist, like many others, is so willing to settle for so little, even when offered the way to so much. Will pride win out over peace offered and cut off an eternity? I hope not, for your sakes.blip
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Blip, I simply noted on the main focus; there is no rebuke meant, just let us not end up way out on a tangent that snaps off from the focal concerns. You have brought out significant issues and concerns by bringing up easily the most controversial figure in human history. Those help us see how people tick. And yes, it all connects, hence my linking a 101 on worldviews. Where, what is evil and why do we see some of the views we are seeing are in the end worldview questions. Where, it is interesting that the typical objectors we deal with have not really thought through even a worldviews 101 framework. Yes, there have been exceptions, but that is exactly the point. In context, I recently saw where Nat Geog started an article by suggesting that Jesus of Nazareth can seriously be viewed as a mythical figure. So much for that once great magazine -- that sort of sloppiness and failure to do basic homework on a COVER STORY indicts the entire editorial board. And yes, it is indisputable that Jesus is one of humanity's great teachers. So, we have indeed got a serious challenge: how can the speaker of the all time most famous and influential sermon (given on a mountain in Galilee) be someone who claimed power to forgive sins, claimed to be THE way, truth and life, accepted worship and convinced his closest associates that he was not only without sin but God incarnate who rose from death with 500+ witnesses? How did he convince the first arch persecutor too? His hitherto dubious brothers who tried to take him in charge as a lunatic? And how did all of this happen by 35 - 38 AD? Those are indeed serious challenges that typical skeptics by and large have not cogently addressed. Going beyond, I wonder if professed atheists appreciate enough of the logic of being to know that God is a serious candidate necessary being [as opposed to flying spaghetti monster parodies etc] and as such will either be actual or else would have to be as impossible of being as a square circle is? KF
PS: The last point closes the circle as the problem of evil was a standard argument to dismiss the possibility of a being like God. Until Plantinga blew it up 50 years ago now. See the PS to the OP for an outline.kairosfocus
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
KF, it is a bit off topic in one sense, but not in another. All these thoughts are tied together, after all. You, BA77, and others have made it quite clear with your very helpful posts tying biology, quantum physics, math, philosophy, etc.
But there always have to be limits, of course. My apologies if I went too far in this thread.
It's just that the key issue that we must all face, including Allan, is what to do with Jesus. How we respond to Jesus sets in motion a plethora of perspectives, concepts, convictions, actions, promises, etc., none of which will fall properly into place without getting back to the central question: "But who do you say that I am?"
Given this post in some measure calls Allan to task on his deceptive ways, I thought it good to add my comments here.
Sadly, it remains all too clear to me that Allan is more about obfuscation, deceit, changing the subject, rebellion against "that which does not exist" (how silly to waste one's energy on non-existing things), than he is about challenging himself, or even others, to grow some.blip
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Allan, you know fully well that manipulation is meant negatively, not whichever way you wish so you can have your out in a tight spot. I mean it as in lying. And it is obvious that is how you took it yourself the moment you pulled those low-life manipulating evangelical ministers out of the closet. Honestly, you do not manipulate well. You are so easy to see through.
So if thinking through things isn't so hard for you, I suggest you stop recommending it and you start actually doing it. You haven't as of yet.
After giving an initial, honest, if not well thought through, answer about your impression of Jesus, you put yourself in a compromising corner. Because you claim he is a good role model (which means he is one good to emulate, despite your objection).
But he also said he is God although you say you can forgive the delusion, without having explained where the delusion lies. More assumptions on your part?
And he never takes God to task for the slaughter of so many that God commanded to slaughter. Unlike you. What's this, a blind spot on the part of Jesus? Maybe he is trying to cover up something? Still a good role model for you, Allan? Are you going to start recommending Jesus follow you now?
The fact remains that Jesus doesn't offer you the comfortable option of thinking of him as a nice role model.
He is either delusional for saying he is God and saying he is sinless. In this case, he needs to be cared for but not seen as a good role model. Not emulated.
Or he is a liar and dangerous for saying he is God and sinless (while he isn't) and for convincing you he is a good role model, and for approving the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people by God's command. In this case, he needs to be contained somehow. The religious leaders of the time assumed (here we go again, assumed) that death would contain Jesus well enough. How could it go wrong? Right?
Or something else is going on. But you've been making so many assumptions, we haven't gotten to this point yet.
You stand to gain much by taking the thought to the next level, not just recommending it on the sly. What do you say? Dare to be honest?
Or do you continue to go to your delusional dentist for work in your mouth?
Or do you continue to go to your liar of a doctor to give you honest medical advice about your health?
And where did you get the idea Jesus is good anyway? Tabloids in the check-out lanes, perhaps?
Regardless, you will indeed have a beer with Jesus. Or barbeque. The menu depends on the dietary needs of invited guests.
Please get serious on your thinking. You want to be challenged. Here it is.blip
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
AK & Blip: the exchange just above is a bit off topic, but I find a significant side-light when in ultimate defence of slander and trivialising our understanding of evil, AK trots out the tired old "true believer" canard:
I have no delusion that people like KF or BA77 find any value in what I say. That is the nature of having deep held unwavering beliefs
FYI, AK, those who disagree with you and for cause find evolutionary materialistic scientism to be self-referentially incoherent and thus irretrievably self falsifying as well as clearly utterly amoral in the end (as in what radical relativism boils down to: might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' etc) and so too manifestly morally bankrupt are not thereby inevitably one or more of indoctrinated, closed-minded true believers or else ignorant or stupid or insane or wicked.
Perhaps, you may find it helpful to see how I actually provide a 101 level context for worldviews worth holding with some degree of reasonable, responsible confidence, here on. And, on the side issue just above, you may wish to take a look here on.
We are not the simplistic cardboard cutout figures you suggested above.
KFkairosfocus
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Blip,
So am I to take it this is how you offer advice here? In other words, do you provide answers here to manipulate the reader while under the delusion that you are offering something of value?
If by ‘manipulate the reader’ you mean to make them think outside their comfort zone to stimulate discussion, then yes. Whether or not people find value in what I say is up to the individual. I have no delusion that people like KF or BA77 find any value in what I say. That is the nature of having deep held unwavering beliefs.
You do think of yourself as a fairly lógical and nice guy don’t you?
No more so than the next guy.
And you say Jesus is an example to emulate, so you might actually enjoy hanging around him, right?
No, I said that he was an excellent role model for the most part. But, yes, I think I would enjoy hanging out with the dude. Have a beer or two. Talk philosophy, the camel races.
Manipulating and delusional though he might be?
They are often the most interesting people. Besides, don’t be fooled into thinking that people with mental illnesses can’t make huge contributions to society. Often times they are the most imaginative.
I did ask for a bit of thought in answering. Is it so difficult, really?
Not really. I highly recommend it. :)Allan Keith
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Just assumed? Sounds like a teen's response to me. No offense to teens meant. I have one barely out of that category myself and I love her dearly.
So am I to take it this is how you offer advice here? In other words, do you provide answers here to manipulate the reader while under the delusion that you are offering something of value? You do think of yourself as a fairly lógical and nice guy don't you? And you say Jesus is an example to emulate, so you might actually enjoy hanging around him, right? Manipulating and delusional though he might be? I can't quite pout my finger on it, but I wonder if you have just found your missing twin.
I did ask for a bit of thought in answering. Is it so difficult, really?blip
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Blip,
Interesting how you should consider keeping company with a madman who approved of mass slaughter and claimed to be the one and only God you so despise, don’t you think?
With regard to his claim to be god, I just assumed that he was either manipulating the crowd, as many evangelical ministers do today, or he was simply delusional. Even delusional and manipulative people can have good advice.Allan Keith
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Interesting how you should consider keeping company with a madman who approved of mass slaughter and claimed to be the one and only God you so despise, don't you think?
I asked you to please think a bit before responding. Why didn't you?blip
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Blip,
What say you of Jesus Christ?
I believe that he either existed as a single person or was an amalgamated story of a couple people (I lean towards the former). I think that most of the things he taught with respect to how we should deal with others is excellent advice and well worth following.
But do I think that he was born of a virgin? That he was the son of god? No.
Do I think that he had personal ambitions? Yes. Do I think that he may have acted on occasion in a manipulative way? Yes. Do I think that he occasionally acted selfishly? Yes. In short, I believe that he was a man trying to live as selfless a life as he could, succeeding more often than not. In general, an excellent role model, for the most part.Allan Keith
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Allan, an honest question to you:
What say you of Jesus Christ?
An honest answer, after a bit of careful thinking, would be much appreciated.
Please dont take the position my question has nothing to do with this post. Or with you, for that matter. This will be evident to you in time.
Jorgeblip
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
as to:
Two questions:
Origenes: (1) This is based on what? Personal preference?
AK: No. Logic.
And without free will, just how do you, a Darwinian materialist, choose things that are logical?
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
And why is the immaterial entity of logic considered to be real and universal by you, a materialist, whilst the immaterial entity of morality not considered to be real and universal by you but to be non-real and, ultimately, subjective?
As an atheistic materialist, you just can't pick and choose which immaterial entities you want to be real. The reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution denies the reality of ALL immaterial entities:
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”
– J. Budziszewski, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide
From Adam Sedgwick ? 24 November 1859
Cambridge
My dear Darwin,
,,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
bornagain77
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
AK, circularity and question-begging again:
banning these actions does harm to individuals with no proof that banning these actions are required for survival of society.
Do you not see how many implicit oughts are here, without actual grounding? Especially on your evident worldview? So, too, that your views actually are parasitical on the grounding of OUGHT that is rooted in the very theism in our civilisation that you seem to despise (given tone of dismissive references to "religion")?
As in, there is an IS-OUGHT gap to be bridged, if moral government (including of our life of the mind) is to be coherent. There is but one level where it can be bridged, given the force of Hume's "surpriz'd" argument about reasoning is-is then poof ought-ought out of nowhere. Namely, the world-root. Our world has a bill of necessities that implies the roots of reality must fuse is and ought, on pain of reducing even the moral governance of mind by duties to truth, reasonableness, soundness, prudence, justice etc to grand, self-referential delusion.
After many centuries of debates, there is but one serious candidate, but a candidate that many have a visceral hostility to. Namely, the inherently good and wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of our loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
This is philosophy, not theology. The challenge is, if you think you have another candidate, put it up: ____, then test it on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. I can safely predict that none will come from evolutionary materialism and its ideological fellow travellers.
Going further, we can highlight the central evil of our time: the global holocaust of living posterity in the womb, 800+ millions in 40+ years, and mounting up at another million per week. Manifestly, the living child in the womb is human. So, why is it that its right to life itself is so routinely given short shrift? Do you not see that the corrupting of consciences and institutions alike across the world -- in a day when we need to responsibly manage nukes -- is an obvious existential threat? That, likewise, as one corruption sets a precedent for others, we face a rising tidal wave of corrupt behaviours brought in under false colour of rights and imposed through lawfare and manipulation? Manifestly harming others?
(Notice, how you left off the my right to swing my arms ends where your nose begins principle? Origenes is right to raise Germany in the 1930's - 40's as a test case. The civil peace of justice must duly balance our rights, freedoms and responsibilities in a community that promotes responsible thriving across the span of generations. A tall order and, increasingly, one we fail to meet through the impact of the self-destructive dynamics of mutiny on Plato's ship of state. In particular, Democratic self government is inherently unstable and prone to fly out to anarchy, rebounding therefrom into the vortex of tyranny, or to directly slide down the vortex through behind the scenes manipulation by corrupt and cynically ambitious elites. That was the challenge addressed through modern, constitutional, representational democracy with stabilising checks, balances, freedom of conscience, freedom of the pulpit, freedom of expression and freedom of the responsible press. All of which are manifestly collapsing today.)
I cite such, of course, to show that a lot more than simple "logic" is at work. And, to show that when the "light" in us is in fact the manipulated darkness of the shadow-shows in a Plato's Cave, our darkness then becomes even deeper. For, if we test the right and the truth by requiring conformity to the wrong, the right and the truth will never align with such a crooked yardstick.
That is why we need plumbline, self-evident moral truths (and other key truths) that we have confidence are naturally evident, so that we can then see if our yardsticks are crooked.
Let me again cite as a test case one you have studiously avoided addressing and which over the years has served to bring out a lot here at UD. Namely -- and sadly, this is real-world not a hypothetical: it is self-evidently evil to ambush, pounce on, kidnap, gag and bind a young child on the way home from school, then -- for one's sick pleasure, sexually assault, torture and violate then murder the child.
Unsurprisingly, this is a generation that in large part routinely despises and dismisses plumbline, self-evident truths. Especially, when such truths do not conform to the politically correct agendas of entrenched, powerful, favoured factions.
The true "morality" of far too much of our day is the antimorality of might and manipulation make 'right'- 'rights'- 'truth'- 'justice'- knowledge'- 'science' [see the history of eugenics] . . . and more. And the agit prop and lawfare games are steadily going zip-zip-zip through the root of the branch on which we are sitting.
Sawdust is piling up real fast.
We are headed for a crash.
With nukes on the loose.
KFkairosfocus
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Because I don’t see how it can benefit the individuals in society or the survival of society.
Or, more accurately, banning these actions does harm to individuals with no proof that banning these actions are required for survival of society.Allan Keith
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
Origenes,
Two questions:
(1) This is based on what? Personal preference?
No. Logic.
2) What if the “others” and the “society”, which you refer to, are evil — say Nazi-Germany? Is it “bad” to hurt members of the SS (“others”) and thwart the success of Nazi-Germany (“survival of society”) when it benefits the individual?
Since the Nazis were harmful to a large number of their society, and because their aggressive actions hurt the survival of their society, your question is irrelevant.
So, what did you say?
I said that when someone says that something is “evil” they are saying that it is beyond discussion.
Why not?
Because I don’t see how it can benefit the individuals in society or the survival of society.Allan Keith
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Allan Keith @15
AK: Anything that benefits the individual without harming others or the survival of society is good. Or anything that benefits the survival of society without harming the individual is good. Anything that does the opposite of either is bad.
Two questions:
(1) This is based on what? Personal preference?
(2) What if the “others” and the “society”, which you refer to, are evil — say Nazi-Germany? Is it “bad” to hurt members of the SS (“others”) and thwart the success of Nazi-Germany (“survival of society”) when it benefits the individual?
AK: No. That’s not what I said.
So, what did you say?
AK: No.
Why not?Origenes
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
AK,
circular and question-begging:
Anything that benefits the individual without harming others or the survival of society is good. Or anything that benefits the survival of society without harming the individual is good. Anything that does the opposite of either is bad.
In addition, there is the problem of short vs long term.
A much better approach pivots on Kant's insight that we can recognise many evils from how they use others of substantially equivalent moral worth as means to our ends, and equivalently, that such evils cannot sustainably be universalised. In short, evils parasite off goods and frustrate or pervert them from fulfilling proper ends.
We are back to the summary as has been already given:
what evil is, as a secondary phenomenon: the frustration, twisting, perversion or privation of what is good in itself that prevents or hampers it from attaining its proper end. A proper end that is often naturally evident. Such as, that our minds are properly aimed at and governed by truth and linked correct, cogent reasoning and duties to the just, the good, the prudent, the wise, etc.
KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Origenes,
What exactly is “very good” about vmahuna’s comment? And what, according to you, is “good” and what is “bad”?
Anything that benefits the individual without harming others or the survival of society is good. Or anything that benefits the survival of society without harming the individual is good. Anything that does the opposite of either is bad.
It is as if you consider it “evil” to say that something is beyond discussion. Correct? If so, why?
No. That’s not what I said.
Is it okay with you when a society determines that homosexuality, abortion, contraceptives and evolution are “evil” and “beyond discussion”? If not, why not?
No.Allan Keith
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
In fact, even infants are found to have a fairly sophisticated moral compass,,
The Moral Life of Babies – May 2010
Excerpt: From Sigmund Freud to Jean Piaget to Lawrence Kohlberg, psychologists have long argued that we begin life as amoral animals.,,,
A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.,,,
Despite their overall preference for good actors over bad, then, babies are drawn to bad actors when those actors are punishing bad behavior.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Wired to Be Social: The Ontogeny of Human Interaction - 2010
Excerpt: Kinematic analysis revealed that movement duration was longer and deceleration time was prolonged for other-directed movements compared to movements directed towards the uterine wall. Similar kinematic profiles were observed for movements directed towards the co-twin and self-directed movements aimed at the eye-region, i.e. the most delicate region of the body.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013199
Although that is certainly pretty good as far as it goes, since Darwinists can't even explain the origin of a single gene, as to establishing the reality of objective morality, in this following video Dr Suarez goes even further as to establishing the reality of objective morality by showing that Immanuel Kant’s requirement for the moral argument to be considered valid has now been empirically met in quantum mechanics:
God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum - Antoine Suarez - video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk
Moreover, the following studies actually show that our moral intuition itself transcends space and time:
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD
Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html
Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012)
Excerpt: "But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,,
This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future.
"I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm
Thus, Kant’s criteria for accepting the validity of the moral argument has now been met. Firstly it has been met by showing that there are indeed influences arising from outside space-time, and secondly, and more importantly, it has been met by specifically showing beyond space and time moral influences on humans.
Verse and Music:
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The Allman brothers Band - Soulshine - video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L3BYTS8uxM
Supplemental Note:
ABC News – The Science Behind the Healing Power of Love – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t1p-PwGgE4
. . . and the Overton Window, double-BATNA model:
PPPS: I tracked down the source and confirm the slander. I clip for record from another thread (on somebody’s review of Darwin’s Doubt):