Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Categories
Atheism
Control vs Anarchy
Food for thought
Politics
rhetoric
worldview
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
My point from 241: "If you don’t want people to be “sidetracked” by these issues, don’t keep bringing them up." I assume, kf, you will not mention either of the points in 241 again in this thread, out of a commitment to not sidetracking the discussion.jdk
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
F/N: The continued unresponsiveness to the focal issues laid out would be almost amusing, if it were not in the end tellingly sad. KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
103kairosfocus
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
KF:
I see we are back to side-tracking,...
I apologize for not being able to read your mind. You comment on abortion. I respond to that comment. And I am side-tracking. You make a comment about moral governance. I respond to it, and I am side-tracking. The trend I see is that when someone points out an inconvenient fact that is inconsistent with your world view, you declare it a side track (or an argument from authority, or a strawman, or a red herring, or an ad hominem) and justify to yourself why you don't have to asnwer the question. That speaks volumes. And not in your favour. Again, how do you explain the easily confirmed fact that societies that have deviated from what you would consider to be morally superior (ie., secular, open attitude towards sex, early comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives, abortion on demand) have seen dramatic decreases in unwanted pregnancies and abortions? If abortion is the holocaust you keep insisting it is, this information should make you happy.Armand Jacks
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
kf, you wrote,
This background gives saddening, sobering perspective to the attitude of some objectors to our terming this global killing of posterity, a holocaust. Evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers undermine moral governance and damage our moral compass.
If you don't want people to be "sidetracked" by these issues, don't keep bringing them up.jdk
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
I see we are back to side-tracking, I first just point to the still live threads that thrashed out the side-issue, linked at 103 above. The point for the moment is how the case of Mao illustrates the damage done to conscience. While of course, there is a cluster of challenges inviting replies, not too far above.kairosfocus
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Yes, I have heard that, and discussed it with them at length in the past. I've tried to explain why they are wrong, but (surprise) to no avail, and I don't worry about it anymore. It's their problem if they dismiss the moral judgments of everyone who doesn't have the same worldview that they do. The issue is not "how can you have moral judgments", but rather are the things you offer as moral judgments reasonable, and I wholeheartedly agree with all you say about ways to improve the state of human sexuality and reproduction in the world in order to reduce the number of abortions. Keep on keeping on! :-)jdk
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Jdk:
My moral compass agrees with AJ.
Haven't you heard the news. WJM and KF have declared that as evolutionary materialists, we are not allowed to have a moral compass. :)Armand Jacks
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
My moral compass agrees with AJ.jdk
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
KF:
This background gives saddening, sobering perspective to the attitude of some objectors to our terming this global killing of posterity, a holocaust. Evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers undermine moral governance and damage our moral compass.
Yet it is in western countries that have moved away from your idea of the ideal society (Christian to the core) where we are seeing the greatest reduction in unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Largely because of an open and non-judgmental attitude towards sex, coupled with comprehensive and early sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives. If you are really serious about eliminating the demand for abortion you would be advised to promote the adoption of strategies that have been shown to work rather than wanting to criminalize young women.Armand Jacks
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
RVB8, You (sadly, again) reveal your want of responsiveness to evidence and selective hyperskepticism:
It is about as useful as pointing out to a Chrisitian the utter lack of hard evidence for their own faith. But with fists in ears, eyes wide shut, and odd sounds coming from the throat, little gets through. I can however attack silliness before it takes root, and that is what I do, not evangelically, but when the rare opportunities arise.
I again point you to the OP, including a certain video that gives a 101 level introduction, and I point you -- and the silent reader -- to look at the discussion here on, just for starters. KF PS: Your sneering at citation from a significant source speaks for itself. And not in your favour. PPS: Meanwhile, the ghosts hover.kairosfocus
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT
FFT6C: It is worth noting the unresponsiveness to 219 and 178 above, especially at the points where objectors were directly invited to put up alternatives. We can take it to the bank that UD is obsessively monitored by denizens of a penumbra of hostile sites. Denizens, more than willing to pounce when they see opportunity. In short, the above blanks left unanswered speak to yet another hovering ghost or three in the room. Here, first, the point that there is no necessary appeal to design inferences and debates to build a case for ethical theism adequate to ground commitment to such. Second, that the atheistical objectors and their fellow travellers have no cogent answer to the need for a necessary being root to reality, nor to the point that the God of ethical theism is a serious candidate to be such (by utter contrast with the cartoonish flying spaghetti monster etc), nor to the onward point that such a serious candidate will be either ontologically impossible [as a square circle is impossible] or else will be actual. Third, they have no cogent answer to the significance of the point that just to have a real discussion, we must implicitly accept that we are responsible, reasonable, significantly free and intelligent beings under moral government. Not least, conscience is the compass within pointing to the truth, the right and our duties of care towards such. Undermining this dimension of conscious mindedness by implying it is delusional lets grand delusion loose in our minds, ending in shipwreck. So, we can see that the evo mat scientism picture of the world falls apart, and that there is no need to go out of our way to accommodate it. It is self-referentially incoherent and so self-falsifying. Nor, should we yield to the trend to corrupt the concept, truth. (That, too, is part of the benumbing and warping of conscience, as say Orwell brought out so forcefully in his 1984.) The astute onlooker will also note that we have had a worldviews discussion, not one pivoting on parsing Bible texts. Though, I have noted that this analysis is compatible with at least one key summary argument in Scripture, one that points to this sort of analysis as valid on the whole if soundly done. Let me clip:
Rom 1:18 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 . . . . 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]. [AMP]
The passage goes on to highlight how the warping of mind and conscience ends up in a topsy-turvy world that approves evil and by implication disapproves the good. That alludes subtly to another text, from the prophet Isaiah:
Isa 5:18 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who drag along wickedness with cords of falsehood, And sin as if with cart ropes [towing their own punishment]; 19 Who say, “Let Him move speedily, let Him expedite His work [His promised vengeance], so that we may see it; And let the purpose of the Holy One of Israel approach And come to pass, so that we may know it!” 20 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever and shrewd in their own sight! [AMP]
This summary rings all too sadly true as we look out across the moral wasteland of our largely apostate civilisation that has so often deliberately turned its back on the truth and has refused to endure sound instruction. Instead, we have ever so often chosen to go out in the ways of cleverly constructed errors, leading many astray into ruin. Given an onward exchange, I think I should note from Eta Linnemann on the undermining of theology:
Theology as it is taught in universities all over the world . . . is based on the historical-critical method . . . . [which] is not just the foundation for the exegetical disciplines. It also decides what the systematician can say . . . It determines procedure in Christian education, homiletics and ethics . . . . Research is conducted ut si Deus non daretur (“as if there were no God”). That means the reality of God is excluded from consideration from the start . . . Statements in Scripture regarding place, time, sequences of events and persons are accepted only insofar as they fit in with established assumptions and theories . . . . Since other religions have their scriptures, one cannot assume the Bible is somehow unique and superior to them . . . . It is taken for granted that the words of the Bible and God’s word are not identical . . . the New Testament is pitted against the Old Testament, assuming that the God of the New Testament is different from that of the Old, since Jesus is said to have introduced a new concept of God . . . . Since the inspiration of Scripture is not accepted, neither can it be assumed that the individual books of Scripture complement each other. Using this procedure one finds in the Bible only a handful of unrelated literary creations . . . . Since the content of biblical writings is seen as merely the creation of theological writers, any given verse is nothing more than a non-binding, human theological utterance. For historical-critical theology, critical reason decides what is reality in the Bible and what cannot be reality; and this decision is made on the basis of the everyday experience accessible to every person [i.e. the miraculous aspect of Scripture, and modern reports of miracles -- regardless of claimed attestation -- are dismissed as essentially impossible to verify and/or as merely “popular religious drivel”] . . . . . Due to the presuppositions that are adopted, critical reason loses sight of the fact that the Lord, our God, the Almighty, reigns. [Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), pp. 83 – 88 as excerpted.] There is nothing in historical-critical theology that has not already made its appearance in philosophy. Bacon (1561 – 1626), Hobbes (1588 – 1679), Descartes (1596 – 1650), and Hume (1711 – 1776) laid the foundations: inductive thought as the only source of knowledge; denial of revelation; monistic worldview; separation of faith and reason; doubt as the foundation of knowledge. Hobbes and Hume established a thoroughgoing criticism of miracles; Spinoza (1632 – 1677) also helped lay the basis for biblical criticism of both Old and New Testaments. Lessing (1729 – 1781) invented the synoptic problem. Kant’s (1724 – 1804) critique of reason became the basic norm for historical-critical theology. Hegel (1770 – 1831) furnished the means for the process of demythologizing that Rudolph Bultmann (1884 – 1976) would effectively implement a century later – after the way had been prepared by Martin Kähler (1835 – 1912). Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855) . . . reduced faith to a leap that left rationality behind. He cemented the separation of faith and reason and laid the groundwork for theology’s departure from biblical moorings . . . . by writing such criticism off as benign . . . . Heidegger (1889 – 1976) laid the groundwork for reducing Christian faith to a possibility of self-understanding; he also had considerable influence on Bultmann’s theology. From Karl Marx . . . came theology of hope, theology of revolution, theology of liberation. [Biblical Criticism on Trial (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001), pp. 178 – 9.]
Another text has haunted me for months as I have pondered the path of our all too patently willfully perverse civilisation:
1 John 2:15 Do not love the world [of sin that opposes God and His precepts], nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust and sensual craving of the flesh and the lust and longing of the eyes and the boastful pride of life [pretentious confidence in one’s resources or in the stability of earthly things]—these do not come from the Father, but are from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and with it its lusts [the shameful pursuits and ungodly longings]; but the one who does the will of God and carries out His purposes lives forever. 18 Children, it is the last hour [the end of this age]; and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming [the one who will oppose Christ and attempt to replace Him], even now many antichrists (false teachers) have appeared, which confirms our belief that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us [seeming at first to be Christians], but they were not really of us [because they were not truly born again and spiritually transformed]; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out [teaching false doctrine], so that it would be clearly shown that none of them are of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One [you have been set apart, specially gifted and prepared by the Holy Spirit], and all of you know [the truth because He teaches us, illuminates our minds, and guards us from error]. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie [nothing false, no deception] is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed)? This is the antichrist [the enemy and antagonist of Christ], the one who denies and consistently refuses to acknowledge the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies and repudiates the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses and acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, let that remain in you [keeping in your hearts that message of salvation] which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you too will remain in the Son and in the Father [forever]. 25 This is the promise which He Himself promised us—eternal life. 26 These things I have written to you with reference to those who are trying to deceive you [seducing you and leading you away from the truth and sound doctrine]. 27 As for you, the anointing [the special gift, the preparation] which you received from Him remains [permanently] in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But just as His anointing teaches you [giving you insight through the presence of the Holy Spirit] about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as His anointing has taught you, [c]you must remain in Him [being rooted in Him, knit to Him]. [AMP]
In the end, that is the diagnosis, and the answer to the spirit of our age. KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Kairos, thank you or explaining to me what I already know. However the 18-23 y.o students I know are less clear on this history and I do not hold, 'Enlightenment for Chinese Youth Classes 101.' I wouldn't last long if I did, and I fail to see what possible good this would accomplish, save offending so many indoctrinated. It is about as useful as pointing out to a Chrisitian the utter lack of hard evidence for their own faith. But with fists in ears, eyes wide shut, and odd sounds coming from the throat, little gets through. I can however attack silliness before it takes root, and that is what I do, not evangelically, but when the rare opportunities arise. Pleae don't give me patronising histories on China, you embarass yourself with your cut and paste aproach. Just a guess, you and KRock aren't travellers are you? I could be wrong but I doubt it.rvb8
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
F/N: Rummel on democide in China, here (it is worth the while to read the whole utterly sobering thing). After speaking to warlordism and chaos, he highlights the mass murders of the Nationalists. Then, he turns to the current masters of China:
Up to October 1, 1949, when Mao Tse-tung officially proclaimed the Peoples Republic of China, the communists killed from 1,838,000 to 11,692,000 people, most likely some 3,466,000. This is about one-third the democide of the Nationalists. The communists usually controlled a much smaller population. But also, they treated their soldiers much better, the process of conscription was not a death trap, and officials and officers were far less corrupt and undisciplined. Thus, the population was less subject to the arbitrary killing by the communists; what killing did take place was often part of a program or campaign mapped out in advance. Even in newly conquered areas, when peasants spontaneously would take matters into their own hands, round up some hated local bullies or former officials and beat them to death, it generally was within the communist scheme. Otherwise, the party's Central Committee would have made reference to communist goals while instructing cadre to prevent such "anti-social action." Once control over all of China was won and consolidated, and the proper party machinery and instruments of control were generally in place, the communists launched numerous movements to systematically destroy the traditional Chinese social and political system and replace it with a totally socialist, top to bottom "dictatorship of the proletariat." . . . . Now, beginning in 1950, carefully and nationally organized movement after movement rapidly followed each other: Land Reform, Suppressing Anti-communist Guerrillas, New Marriage system, Religious Reform, Democratic Reform, Suppressing Counterrevolutionaries, Anti-Rightist Struggle, Suppressing the "Five Black Categories," etc. Each of these was a step towards the final communization of China; each was bloody. Self-consciously bloody. Witness what Mao himself had to say in a speech to party cadre in 1958: What's so unusual about Emperor Shih Huang of the Chin Dynasty? He had buried alive 460 scholars only, but we have buried alive 46,000 scholars. In the course of our repression of counter-revolutionary elements, haven't we put to death a number of the counter-revolutionary scholars? I had an argument with the democratic personages. They say we are behaving worse than Emperor Shih Huang of the Chin Dynasty. That's definitely not correct. We are 100 times ahead of Emperor Shih of the Chin Dynasty in repression of counter-revolutionary scholars.8 Only when these movements and especially the final, total collectivization of the peasants and "Great Leap Forward" destroyed the agricultural system, causing the world's greatest recorded famine--27,000,000 starved too death9--did the communist begin to draw back from or slacken their drives. Shortly after this famine, in the mid-1960s, an intra-party civil war erupted between Mao Tse-tung and his followers, who wanted to continue the mass-based revolution, and a more moderate, pragmatically oriented faction. This "cultural revolution" probably cost 1,613,000 lives. Mao won, but only temporarily. With his death soon after, the pragmatists and "capitalist roaders" regained power and launched China in a more open, economically experimental direction; even, until the Tianamen Square demonstrations and subsequent massacres of 1989, on a more liberal path . . . . Finally controlling a unified China, finally able to put into effect for the whole nation their principles and plans, finally able to discard any tactical considerations about public opinion, peasant support, or encouraging volunteers for the militia and army, the communists could create their utopia. In this they utterly failed, as did the communists in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. But the people paid the price for these greatest of social experiments. Since 1949 the Chinese communists killed from 5,999,000 to 102,671,000 people; a prudent estimate is 35,236,000. When added to the number they murdered in previous years, the communists likely killed 38,702,000 Chinese, Tibetans, and other minorities . . .
That is his old, low estimate for the Communists. Subsequently, he has noted:
Two books have had a big impact on my evaluation of Mao’s rise to absolute power and his rule over China. One is Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China by Jung Chang, and the other is Mao: the Unknown Story that she wrote with her husband, Jon Halliday. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin . . . . From the time I wrote my book on China’s Bloody Century (1991–here), I have held to these democide totals for Mao: Civil War-Sino-Japanese War 1923-1949 = 3,466,000 murdered Rule over China (PRC) 1949-1987 = 35,236,000 murdered However, some other scholars and researchers had put the PRC total in from 60,000,000 to a high 70,000,000. When I’ve been asked why my total is so low by comparison, I’ve responded that I did not include the China’s Great Famine 1958-1961 [As, he did not think it an intentional mass killing, more of an experiment gone horribly wrong and stopped it seemed as soon as possible once the impact was understood] . . . . Others, however, have so counted it, but I thought this was a sloppy application of the concepts of mass murder, genocide, or politicide (virtually no one used the concept of democide). They were right and I was wrong. From the biography of Mao, which I trust (for those who might question it, look at the hundreds of interviews Chang and Halliday conducted with communist cadre and former high officials, and the extensive bibliography) I can now say that yes, Mao’s policies caused the famine. He knew about it from the beginning. He didn’t care! Literally. Indeed, wanted to take even more food from the mouths of his starving people in order to increase his export of food. It was all he had to export and he was after power. He was dead set on becoming the head of the international communist movement, and in making China a superpower. He thought he could rule the world. In order to do so, he exported vast quantities of food to the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Third World countries that he was trying to control. Ironically, some communist rulers knew about his famine and thus declined his food, since hey had more to feed their people than he did. With the Soviet Union, he was using food as a quid pro quo for weapons and weapon factories. Those in the top circle of the CCP tried to alleviate the famine. They were arrested, some tortured, some executed or allowed to die horribly. Even in 1961, he wanted to INCREASE the amount of food taken from the people. But, at great risk to himself, Liu Shao-ch’i (President of the PRC and second in power) ambushed Mao at a CCP conference of 7,000, which agreed with Liu to alleviate the famine. Mao could not forgive Liu and the others, and because he believed he was thus losing control of the CCP, he launched a purge in 1965 called the Cultural Revolution to overthrow the CCP and replace it with the military. About 100,000,000 people were persecuted, and around 3,000,000 were murdered. So, the famine was intentional. What was its human cost? I had estimated that 27,000,000 Chinese starved to death or died from associated diseases. Others estimated the toll to be as high as 40,000,000. Chang and Halliday put it at 38,000,000, and given their sources, I will accept that. Now, I have to change all the world democide totals that populate my websites, blogs, and publications. The total for the communist democide before and after Mao took over the mainland is thus 3,446,000 + 35,226,000 + 38,000,000 = 76,692,000, or to round off, 77,000,000 murdered. This exceeds the 61,911,000 murdered by the Soviet Union 1917-1987, with Hitler far behind at 20,946,000 wiped out 1933-1945. For perspective on Mao’s most bloody rule, all wars 1900-1987 cost in combat dead 34,021,000 — including WWI and II, Vietnam, Korea, and the Mexican and Russian Revolutions. Mao alone murdered over twice as many as were killed in combat in all these wars . . .
This does not count those aborted and killed through the one child per family policy, of course. That, I have to assume, lies somewhere in the Guttmacher-UN figures behind my deliberately conservative estimate, 800+ millions in 40+ years. This background gives saddening, sobering perspective to the attitude of some objectors to our terming this global killing of posterity, a holocaust. Evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers undermine moral governance and damage our moral compass. Demonstrably. I trust this corrective will give enough counterweight to help restore a due balance to that ever so vital compass. And, in that context, I find it almost amusing, but then on second thought saddeningly highly significant to see the clearly studied silence so far in response to FFT 6B, at 219 above. (Drooling parsons and whatnot, I suppose.) Signal injection and response analysis, on steroids. KF PS: One of my neighbours was a Nationalist soldier who had fled to Jamaica, and had become a businessman, raising a good sized family. He kept his M1 Garand ready for action. Others were the parents of class-mates and I recall one clash between a student finally driven too far and a radical-chic teacher. He stood up (astonishingly red in the face) and spoke to how, if his family were utterly stripped of resources and driven out into exile again, they would be able to build themselves up again. He was one of those quiet students who seldom spoke. I suspect much the same did happen, as the socialist follies of the 1970's drove out many; especially to Canada. I suppose maybe 500 - 1200 dead in a mini civil war [depends on what you count, why, e.g. the Eventide Home fire] does not even budge the global democide meter, but it was enough that my native land is now more or less permanently destabilised. Of course, much the same follies are now playing out in Venezuela, to the almost studied silence of the major media houses, who are utterly lacking in curiosity and investigative vigour as to why and how behind the very occasional news items that things are bad there. Both our regional news and the major mainstream news. All of this, of course, tells us much about their shadow-show games and cartoonish vilifying of those they now so obviously fear, loathe and in some cases seem to outright hate.kairosfocus
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Axel, Whisper, whisper, whisper, behind the bikesheds; "Hey!'KF, I bet rvb8...', lies to children,steals lunch money, eats dog doings, talks to himself etc'":) Not really, I merely disabuse new Chinese Protestant Christians of their faith, and am quite good at it. As I said, the old Catholic Families I admire, as I do my old Muslim student's families, and Buddhist student's families. They have grown up in their faith and have clear cultural links with it, and their home town's various histories. As I further said the evangelicals sent here, largely by the UK, and US, are not pleasnat people, down right ignorent of all they behold, belittle it, and are generally objectionable. KRock, China actually murdered millions of its own people, but hey, they're only human. And your culture? I loath this government, and would never excuse any of its many barbarities, but my students? Now that is something different. If I can prevent them from becoming evangelical by simple converstions, I do, failing that I leave them alone. Oh, and one more thing, the two Japanes, two Russian, one English, two American, one Australian, and one Ukrainian teacher all do the same. And further, the Ukranian and Russians are good friends. They're not bound by the shackles of religion you see. Although, they would, if they had any, share the same faith. You say I have pretensions at intellect. No! In my experience, it is uneducated Pastors leading drooling followers, that desperately seek respect in filling the void of a lack of academic rigour, through pretensions in poor writng.rvb8
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
axel writes, "KRock, re jdk… and a snitch and proud of it." What in the world are you talking about? I think you have me confused with someone else.jdk
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
KF, I bet rvb8 accidentally proselytizes his students, turning them towards investigating Christianity. On the basis that any religion rvb8 expresses so much animus towards must have something pretty special going for it. Here he is, making his living teaching the glorious achievements of Christian culture, and expressing contempt from it... ! And they say we're inscrutable..Axel
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
KRock, re jdk... and a snitch and proud of it.Axel
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Dionisio:
It seems like many anonymous onlookers are visiting your discussion thread.
As opposed to non-anonymous onlookers like Dionisio, KairosFocus, Krock, etc?Armand Jacks
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Krock:
Why can’t science and religion co-exist?
I didn't say they couldn't. I am not the one who tries to distance ID from religion and then spends so much time on religion.Armand Jacks
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
@ Armand Jacks #213 Why can't science and religion co-exist? There's a lot more to this world than just science!KRock
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
@ rvb8 #216 Unfortunately you've lost all credibility with me and now you're simply trying to save face. The very least you could do is own the fact you had no idea what the word "disabuse" actually meant until I called you out on it! Are you talking about the same culture that sought to wipe out the Christian faith entirely only to have it re-merge stronger than ever? Or is it the one that murdered thousands upon thousands of its own people? Yes, when man is the measure of all things, great things truly do happen don't they. Oh, and playing word scrabble really doesn't make you sound very intelligent; if anything, its making you sound like a wannabe! And that's not my personal sentiment either, that's based on—we'll say—the longevity of you posting here at UD. Ooops, I just dropped the mic....! CheersKRock
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
F/N2: one of the interesting examples of selective hyperskepticism we often encounter is the "no evidence" rhetorical gambit so often resorted to by objectors; which gives them a false sense of superiority relative to those they seem to view as credulous. They need to instead take time to learn how the logic of induction works, especially inference to the best current empirically grounded explanation. Likewise, they need to recognise that a dismissive opinion or talking point on their part does not constitute want of evidence or cogent argument on ours -- indeed . . . given a world full of evidence that has been adduced thousands of times just in this blog . . . it most likely indicates the fallacy of the closed, hostile, ideologically indoctrinated question-begging mind on their part. As in, a comment like this above is a real clanger:
"When you start presenting evidence of design in nature, please let me know. I would hate to miss it."
Where, for instance what we are looking at includes coded text in copious quantities in the living cell, and a cosmos fine tuned in dozens of ways that facilitates just such C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life. KF PS: I clip a comment just made to an objector in another thread:
We have a trillion-member observational base on the known cause of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information. Uniformly it is intelligently directed configuration. We have precisely zero cases of origin of FSCO/I beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold by any pattern of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. (For instance, random document generation tests are a factor of 10^100 or so short of the lower end of that range, insofar as config space scale is concerned. And this brings up the underlying analysis of blind search challenge in large spaces of possibilities, which at the threshold overwhelm sol system scale to observed cosmos scale resources, reducing possible scope of blind search based on atomic resources, to a fraction negligibly different from zero.) In this context, the deep past of origins is unobservable, we are forced to investigate by examining traces and inferring the best current empirically warranted explanation. For such, Newton aptly counselled that we should infer based on factors shown to cause the like effects in the here and now. For reasons of anchoring explanation to empirical reality rather than what could easily become ideologically loaded speculative hypothesising. What has happened is that the FSCO/I rich traces of origins would point one way, the demands of evolutionary materialist ideology push in another direction. And today’s dominant elites prefer that self-refuting, self-falsifying system to a responsible inference on prudent principles of induction.
kairosfocus
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
F/N: Just to be provocative, if one has in hand so to speak, what is a credible communication from an inherently good creator God worthy of our loyalty, should not one be inclined to regard such as a trustworthy source of truth, absent clearly decisive evidence to the contrary? Would it then not be reasonable to have some evidence such as fulfilled prophecy -- as in the God who can prophesy knows and is in control of the future -- and a witnessed resurrection from death as fulfillment, as a plumbline test? (In which context, this and this vs this may be quite relevant.) Is this what is pivotal to the exchange above with Charles? KFkairosfocus
April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
KF, It seems like many anonymous onlookers are visiting your discussion thread. The politely dissenting interlocutors just serve as instruments to keep the discussion going. In that sense they're helpful too, though unwittingly. Yes, God is the root of the ultimate reality.Dionisio
April 12, 2017
April
04
Apr
12
12
2017
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
D, yup, and you will see the stage of argument in FFT6B just above. I wonder what our well-informed skeptical interlocutors will put up as alternatives? Especially, noting that THERE IS NO DESIGN INFERENCE in the argument to date, i.e. the design inference as such is demonstrably not an inherent, inextricable part of an argument to God as root of reality. Where, note, the case I am arguing here is not based in Scripture though it is compatible with it -- truths will be compatible the one with the other. And of course, contrary to the talking points I heard today, the God of ethical theism is not automatically the devil, the author of evils and confusions. KFkairosfocus
April 12, 2017
April
04
Apr
12
12
2017
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
FFT6B: At 178 above, we looked at a key question for comparative difficulties analysis:
What sort of world do we have to live in for there to be creatures like us?
This surfaces a key issue, that two truths x and y must be such that we never have y = NOT-x; that is in a coherent world all true statements -- those that accurately describe facets of reality -- will be mutually compatible. I note this, fully recognising that for many, this is actually quite a difficult point today; as, various ideologies have led to a conflation of truth with perception or opinion. Hence, a conversation I had today that turned on the concept, "my truth." Language decay is an old problem, and Orwell pointed out what could be done through new-speak and double-talk. How many are two plus two, Mr Smith? My answer was and is, that we already have perfectly adequate words for opinions and perceptions; so, there is no need to corrupt the meaning of the precious or even vital word, truth. The truth -- as Ari noted long ago in Metaphysics 1011b -- says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. This in turn brings us to the question of being and non-being, of possible and impossible being, of contingent and necessary being. Thus, of causal roots of the world, of reality. And it points to the issue of possible worlds: comprehensive enough descriptions of how things could be or are. Impossible beings such as a square circle cannot exist in any possible world. As, core characteristics stand in mutual contradiction and cannot hold of the same thing, X, under the same circumstances. Here, squarishness and circularity. By contrast, possible beings could exist in at least one possible world. Contingent ones would not do so in all possible worlds but would exist in at least one. I think, in 100 years there will be unicorns, as biotech will be there and people will be willing to pay to have one. Just as we seem to be seeing ever more miniature sized horses already. Necessary beings must exist in any possible world, as they are frameworking requisites of a world existing. For instance, two-ness or distinct identity (equivalent) must be there for a distinct world to be. This is non-trivial, as distinct identity has three immediate corollaries: Law of Identity, Law of Excluded Middle, Law of Non-Contradiction. That is, core logic is built into any possible world; including of course the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. mathematical realities. (NB: We already see here, a key reason for the awesome power of Mathematics in our world and especially in scientific work. [So much for the sneer that this thread has little or no relevance to Science.]) Back to us, as being able to significantly freely discuss our concerns responsibly and rationally, and having an inner compass-sense that insistently points to the truth and the right -- conscience. What sort of world must this be to allow such. and what must be in its frameworking structure? First, we already saw that the denial of responsible, rational, significant freedom lets grand delusion loose and instantly ends in absurdity. Self-evidently, this is a world in which responsibly rational and significantly free, morally governed creatures are possible and in fact actual. That's already a huge result and it sweeps away all worldviews -- their name is legion -- that are incompatible with such creatures. This of course includes evolutionary materialistic scientism, its fellow travellers, radical subjectivism and radical relativism. (Cf. the chain of comments here on, above.) Next, we face the implication of the IS-OUGHT gap, on many levels. A world with moral government has to be such that OUGHT is well-rooted in the fabric and framework of reality. Post Hume et al and post Euthyphro et al, that can only be in the very root of reality, i.e. there must be a necessary being that so fuses IS-ness and OUGHT-ness, that they are inextricably entangled in the roots of reality. What sort of being is capable of such? The answer is utterly challenging, and I have long thought it is best posed in light of comparative difficulties and worldview level inference to the best candidate explanation. We need to look at serious candidates (as opposed to something like a flying spaghetti monster, which will not be a necessary being -- made up from bits and pieces, i.e. composite.) There is just one serious candidate, after centuries of debate: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature (thus, the law of our nature). This is not an arbitrary imposition, if you doubt, simply put up a viable alternative: ________ (this is after all comparative difficulties analysis). Prediction: hard to do. This also has a further highly relevant implication. For a serious candidate necessary being will either be impossible as a square circle is, or else it will be possible thus would exist in at least one world. And, as it would be a frameworking reality, it would be present in every possible world, including our own -- an actual world. (And yes, I am not saying THE actual world.) The God of ethical theism as described, is a serious candidate [e.g. NB's have no beginning or end, are eternal]. This means that God is either impossible as a square circle is impossible, or he is actual. And decades ago, the problem of evils used to be trotted out to make that argument, but that option is effectively dead post-Plantinga and in fact post Boethius. Then, too, if one claims to be an atheist or agnostic, s/he implies knowing good reason to doubt or dismiss the God of ethical theism as impossible even as a square circle is impossible. It would be interesting to hear what such a reason is: _______ (esp. post, problem of evils as a serious view as opposed to a handy piece of intimidatory rhetoric). So, now, we are at a very important threshold, the God of ethical theism is on the table as a serious candidate necessary being, root of reality that grounds a world in which responsibly and rationally free creatures such as ourselves are possible and indeed actual. That is a momentous turning-point, and it would be interesting to see if we will hear of the viable alternatives, including reasons why such a God is an impossible being. More later, DV. KFkairosfocus
April 12, 2017
April
04
Apr
12
12
2017
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
KF @212: RE: 211 Yes, it was just FYI and for your active readers too. I see Charles and you are keeping a busy discussion thread here.Dionisio
April 12, 2017
April
04
Apr
12
12
2017
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
F/N: Just for balance, the breakout and rapid growth of the Christian faith in China began during the era when overseas missionaries were locked out. It is the Chinese church which has set out on its own Back to Jerusalem missionary vision (which dates to the 1920's . . . ), and which is apparently one of the fastest growing churches in the world. KFkairosfocus
April 12, 2017
April
04
Apr
12
12
2017
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
KRock, a faith that has been in the family at least since 1800s, and has survived Mao's purges deserves and gets my respect, if not overt support; this is the very small, Chinese Catholic community. A faith that was picked up from half baked, misguided, US and UK evagelists is something I disabuse these new converts of. I explain that their new faith denies much of modern science including evolution and many times, global warming, the probable commonality of life in the universe, and is often anti-vaccine. Upon hearing my disclosure these new converts are generally surprised as the evangelists realise this is a touchy topic in China (they have a remarkably good science approach). My students then go back and ask these dificult questions of the evangelists, finally get an honest answer, and leave disillusioned; it's that simple. So, you're not interested in my 'sentimental' view of the Chinese culture. It's not sentimental, it's based upon the awe of its longevity, it's based on my amazement at how it can absorb invaders, (the Ming Dynasty), of its cultural, (and sorry to Kairos), scietific contributions to humanity. Its, art, architecture, the way it dominated its region for centuries with no comparable competitor, and many other reasons. This is not sentimentality, it is well placed respect. I assume you have a sentimental respect for the ignorant evangilisers plaguing China at the moment.Now that is truly sentimental, and very misplaced, they areunsavoury characters, to a man, and woman.rvb8
April 12, 2017
April
04
Apr
12
12
2017
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11 12 18

Leave a Reply