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
kj writes, "All of that is in the context of rebuking a lazy, sneeringly supercilious selective hyperskepticism" Getting dangerously close to ad hominems, there. I suggest you pull back. :-)jdk
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
said miracle would do nothing, as said miracle will never happen, so said miracle is a pointless avenue of discussion, unless you are a writer, and said miracle was part of your story line;
Just as expected, you trip over yourself yet again demonstrating you lack any sort of rigor in your thought. And lest you decide to respond and make a fool of yourself again, acquaint yourself with the concept of "thought experiments" and the theories of relativity.
grow up!
I can and I am. You're what, 70 years old? Yet you continue to demonstrate comment after comment that your mental faculties never matured past the point of angry teen. Sadly, you can't grow up.Vy
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
FFT5: The implications of the familiar extraordinary. In this thread, there are arguments that . . . as an observable phenomenon . . . show that we are capable of significant choice and reasoning, i.e. we are responsibly, rationally, significantly free, conscious, en-conscienced, morally governed, communicating creatures. (Indeed, those trying to object are operating on the implicit premise that we are urged by conscience toward the truth and the right; and if we were not, this world would descend into a dark, chaotic ruin in short order. It is a good thing that something urges us on to the truth and the right.) Locke, in Sec 5 of his essay on human understanding (and yes, I add scriptural references i/l/o his cites and allusions), aptly comments:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.]
All of that is in the context of rebuking a lazy, sneeringly supercilious selective hyperskepticism that will scorn more than adequate warrant for ethical theism, because it shuns the premise of moral government: accountability on plainly recognisable duty, before our Maker, Lord, Governor and utterly just Judge. But, that is a bit quick off the mark. Let's start with computational substrates, whether mechanically or electrically analogue or digital or neural network. For instance a ball and disk integrator as was used in tide table machines or naval gunlaying computers is clearly a cause-effect, blindly mechanical system. If it has a fault or is badly programmed, it will err, and it cares not, it is just like Monadology's Mill-Wheels grinding away blindly. Leibniz:
[P]erception, and that which depends upon it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perception, we could conceive of it as increased in size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find anything to explain perception.
There is no recognition of meaning, no perception, no purpose, just blind cause-effect chains externally arranged to yield the solution to certain differential equations. GIGO, and all that. Likewise, the old Pentium chip neither knew nor understood nor cared about the wired in errors that led to the early recall. And, a neural network is not in principle any different. (BTW this points to serious design inferences on the relevant hardware and software in bio-cybernetics systems, but that is a secondary point.) The primary point has been highlighted by Reppert:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as [C S] Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
In short, a physicalist account of mindedness (much less, guidance by light of conscience) faces an ugly, impassable gulch. In effect, rocks -- even refined and carefully organised rocks -- have no dreams; computation is not intentional contemplation. At this point, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers -- and nope you cannot properly, conveniently open up rhetorical daylight between some vague agnosticism and full-blown evo mat to deflect this -- face an impassable gulch. One, that brings out what was already highlighted: mindedness, consciousness, reasoned inference and conscience's compass-pointing alike are all reduced to grand delusion on evo mat premises. Grand delusion would collapse responsible, rational freedom and so falls into irretrievable incoherence and absurdity. Thence, the necessary falsity Pearcey and others have pointed to. But in reality, rational, responsible, conscience-compass bearing consciousness is our first undeniable empirical fact. The fact through which we perceive all others. This is the familiar extraordinary phenomenon, the pivot on which the project of building a sound worldview turns. In effect, unless a worldview is compatible with our being responsible, reasonable, conscience-guided and significantly free beings, it cannot even sit to the table for a discussion of comparative difficulties. It is silenced by being inconsistent with rationality. It is patently, irretrievably absurd and necessarily false. (Evo mat and fellow traveller ideologies, I am looking straight at you.) And so, DV, more anon. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Charles, I apologize! You are quite correct, it was me that first used, 'Christ the God'. It doesn't detract from its bad english, but it eas indeed me that used this silly phrase first; sorry:( Vy, said miracle would do nothing, as said miracle will never happen, so said miracle is a pointless avenue of discussion, unless you are a writer, and said miracle was part of your story line; grow up! Charles, " Why did I, a materiaistic engineer, seek to know the truth about what I read in the Bible when so many others seem to seek delusion." and; "One of the imponderables I have long pondered.." To both quotes, yeah! The depth of your inquiry is breath taking. In the first quote you tell us that your holy book is better than the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu holy books, bcause....? Well, because it's yours I suppose. Of course the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims equally view their holy books as being better than yours; whatever! The second qute stands alone, read it again and again and it declines in depth.rvb8
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
F/N: Next tangent, a snide personality. And BTW, I have acknowledged errors any number of times including most recently IIRC, a mis-attribution above. Some will also find it worth noting that when I am unsure -- as just now -- I will as a rule state it. Cf. the very title of this thread, and how I introduced the guest post. Some should pause enough to ponder that I have not stood up publicly for years to argue positions that will be very unpopular in certain quarters without having first thought them through very carefully indeed. For instance, I came to accept the ID argument by way of thermodynamics and linked info theory considerations, as the linked through my handle documents. As for the Christian faith, I am a case of a walking miracle in answer to prayer in the name of Jesus: I should have died, absent a miracle of guidance in answer to prayer. I have directly experienced the hand and voice of God in my life many times, including in my conversion. I have, for cause, no more doubt on the quality of warrant for the reality of God than I do about the love of my Mom, which still shines through her struggles with Alzheimer's. And more. Anyway, it is time to move the issues forward to the next stage. KF PS: We may note the willful speaking in disregard to truth when it has been pointed out repeatedly that the material issues and questions on the ongoing abortion holocaust of 800+ millions in 40+ years and mounting up at a million per week, were substantially and in my view more than adequately answered in several recent threads, cf 103 above for links. I regard the holocaust-enabling behaviour on display in this thread -- please, think again before playing trollish games -- is meant to derail another perhaps even more vital line of discussion. So, let us proceed over the next little while.kairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
But now that you are here, are you willing to answer my question? Or are you going to take KF’s approach and twist yourself in knots to avoid answering it?
I was enjoying the conversation Charles was trying to have and am glad the abortion sidetrack has been largely ignored by him and others. So no, I'm not interested.Vy
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
VY:
AJ, still the same histrionics after all this time. You are the one who brought up abortion in #35:
I must concede that I was in error. A statement, by the way, that I have never heard from KF. But now that you are here, are you willing to answer my question? Or are you going to take KF's approach and twist yourself in knots to avoid answering it? Unless, of course, you support charging women who have abortions with murder. Or don't believe that the early stage fetus has the same right to life as you or I.Armand Jacks
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Phinehas at 143:, Vy, asauber, kairosfocus...et.al.
The problem isn’t a lack of miracles, it’s a lack of humility.
One of the imponderables I have long pondered is why did I pursue the evidence wherever it may lead when others of equal or greater intelligence claim to do so, yet shear away when the evidence confirms biblical points? Why did I, a materialistic engineer, seek to know the truth about what I read in the Bible when so many others seem to seek delusion? The Bible teaches we are all given the basic ability to believe, yet few of us capitalize on that while most discard it. I find it difficult to put the differences down to a Calvinistic "God chose", but at present I can't find any other explanation for the different outcomes in souls that start off with equal opportunity. There were (and are yet) times in my life when pride gets in my way, and I see much pride and stubborness in the most ardent disbeliever, yet how did so many accummulate more than their fair share of delusional pride?Charles
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
They will not be convinced by anything at all.
Indeed. I saw The Case for Christ over the weekend. It's an OK movie. Not great. I have really low expectations of movies anymore. Anyway... I can write an in-depth review if anyone wants me to. lol It appears that the main character (Atheist turned Christian) suffered from this. I think it was the cooperation of his wife and the Holy Spirit that eventually opened his eyes and heart and mind. He was a fact-based man, but an avalanche of facts weren't good enough for him. When your heart is closed, that's the trump card. Andrewasauber
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
And wouldn’t they be committing the supposed “God-of-the-gaps” fallacy if they then looked to God to fill that gap?
Exactly. That's why in #112, I asked rvb8 those questions about his own "Gap-I-Need-To-Believe". I'm definitely not holding my breath for a meaningful response.
Truly, the Atheists are masters at protecting their belief system.
True. For many, it's all they have.Vy
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Vy @144
It’s really no surprise that while many Atheists disparage their strawman of “God-of-the-Gaps” every now and then, they have no problem demanding a gap in order to believe God exists.
Excellent point! And wouldn't they be committing the supposed "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy if they then looked to God to fill that gap? Truly, the Atheists are masters at protecting their belief system.Phinehas
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
I am a strong agnostic: from all I have seen and learned, my position is that we, human beings, can’t know whether the non-material exists, or what its nature might be.
And yet you claim to know something about this "non-material" - "human beings, can’t know whether the non-material exists, or what its nature might be".
I can imagine extraordinary events that might convince me otherwise
As expected. It's really no surprise that while many Atheists disparage their strawman of "God-of-the-Gaps" every now and then, they have no problem demanding a gap in order to believe God exists. And it really isn't anything beyond supposedly believing He exists. At least the likes of Dawkins and Shermer are honest enough to admit that they have zero interest in believing in God, much less accepting and worshipping Him, no matter the evidence presented. They're honest enough to admit their skepticism is utter nonsense. It's funny you (really rvb8) thinks tripping over himself and continuously blurting out comments that are barely coherent or consistent constitute an argument in favor of his belief or against any person's beliefs here.Vy
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
rvb8:
Why are the miracles of today, so much more, run of the mill, tedious explainable, non-miracles?
Perhaps because God is not interested in giving signs to this generation beyond the sign of Jonah? As Jesus predicted, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Surely, if they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead, they will not be convinced by other miracles. They will not be convinced by anything at all. Bottom line: The problem isn't a lack of miracles, it's a lack of humility.Phinehas
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
KF: Will all due respect, I do not think Charles went too far. rvb8 ought to beware millstones and large bodies of water. Saying so is doing him a great kindness.Phinehas
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
JDK, functionally , it looks a lot like you effectively disbelieve what is actually well warranted to be so, while travelling in company of what is manifestly self-falsifying. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
jdk @ 139
However, by living comfortably with uncertainty about the non-material, I prevent myself from committing the error of believing things that are not true.
But that doesn't prevent you from committing the error of disbelieving things that are true. There are a multitude of ways to be wrong, and only one way to be right.
I disagree that the evidence presented to me warrants the conclusions drawn, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t examined it.
Ok, upon examination, what errors did you identify in the evidence that does not warrant the conclusion? Which facts, specifically, were not as I represented them?Charles
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Charles writes, "“Agnostic” is not invincible ignorance. Agnostic means uncertainty and ostensibly a willingness to resolve that uncertainty." I am a strong agnostic: from all I have seen and learned, my position is that we, human beings, can't know whether the non-material exists, or what its nature might be. I can imagine extraordinary events that might convince me otherwise, but I see nothing, and certainly not the various things mentioned on this site, that are remotely of that nature. You write, "There is not much difference between denying immateriality and denying provable immateriality." Perhaps not, because the material world obviously exists. However, by living comfortably with uncertainty about the non-material, I prevent myself from committing the error of believing things that are not true. You use the phrase, "refuse to examine any evidence." No, I don't refuse to examine the evidence. I disagree that the evidence presented to me warrants the conclusions drawn, but that doesn't mean I haven't examined it.jdk
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
KF,
DS and JDK, it sounds like a fellow traveller ideology, then. In that context, the issue still obtains, to provide an adequate dynamic ground for responsibly and rationally free mindedness and discussion. The materialistic view boils down to trying to get to us on blind chance and mechanical necessity on the road from Hydrogen to humanity. That is the general view I am addressing and it is manifestly incoherent, leaving on the table that our evident conscious, responsible, rational freedom to be able to have a discussion that is not just exchanges of noise, is itself evidence that there is more to the world than what physicalism would allow for. KF
Well, once more, no I'm not a materialist or physicalist. And I'm not claiming I can ground free will &c. That's why I focus mainly on questions of mathematics, logic, and the like here, where even people from diverse backgrounds can agree on our starting assumptions.daveS
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
jdk @ 136 are agnostic about whether the material world is all there is. Did you miss that part in our posts?
jdk @ 13 I also am very interested in some of the metaphysical issues, and don’t rule out the unprovable idea of some type of fundamental cosmic intelligence.
jdk @ 27 I believe it is possible that some type of cosmic intelligence is in some causally related to the existence and nature of our universe. However, I don’t believe we can know anything about whether such intelligence exists, or what it’s nature might be
What is missing from your posts is coherent thought. That something immaterial might be causally related to the existance and nature of our universe, but that you believe, you are certain, it is unprovable. And when offered evidence of just such an immaterial cause (29 and 64-67) in which you claim to believe, you ignored the evidence. "Agnostic" is not invincible ignorance. Agnostic means uncertainty and ostensibly a willingness to resolve that uncertainty. There is not much difference between denying immateriality and denying provable immateriality. As long as you're going to persist in ignoring the evidence for immateriality, why not just admit you're a materialist atheist and be done with it. What do think you gain by admitting to an unprovable immateriality about which you refuse to examine any evidence?Charles
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Uh, kf, me and my "fellow traveller" (by which I assume you mean someone I agree with) are agnostic about whether the material world is all there is. Did you miss that part in our posts?jdk
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
In the OP Charles wrote:
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.
Consider the following argument: Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights. Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard. Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights. Please notice what I am not arguing: (1.) That atheists do not believe in human rights. Many do and do so sincerely if not very strongly. But strongly held beliefs and opinions are not the same as moral obligations. (How am I or anyone obligated to your personal opinions?) Human rights are moral obligations. Atheistic N/M has no logical basis for human rights. (2.) That atheists do not have human rights. They do. Again the argument is that they have no basis for human rights or any kind of objective moral standard. (3.) That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one. Platonic philosophy, for example, provides such a standard. (Are there others?) However, I do believe that Judeo-Christian moral teaching provides a better grounding than Platonic philosophy. Earlier @26 I wrote: “Armand Jacks questioned whether ‘someone else’s opinions’ could be evil. They could be if you try to force your opinions on somebody else.” AJ replied @ 35: “I agree. But when atheists are creating or influencing laws that impact you negatively, as Christians have done for centuries, let me know.” The secular-progressive left is basically atheistic. They are the ones who have illegitimately coopted the idea of human rights and are using it to pass legislation to persecute not only Christians but anyone desiring to live their lives according to traditional moral values. If you don’t know that you have not been paying attention to the news-- not only in the U.S. and Canada but internationally. Am I right that atheistic N/M provides no logical or metaphysical basis for human rights? If I am not then one of our atheist interlocutors needs to present a counter argument, beginning with the premise: Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.john_a_designer
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
DS and JDK, it sounds like a fellow traveller ideology, then. In that context, the issue still obtains, to provide an adequate dynamic ground for responsibly and rationally free mindedness and discussion. The materialistic view boils down to trying to get to us on blind chance and mechanical necessity on the road from Hydrogen to humanity. That is the general view I am addressing and it is manifestly incoherent, leaving on the table that our evident conscious, responsible, rational freedom to be able to have a discussion that is not just exchanges of noise, is itself evidence that there is more to the world than what physicalism would allow for. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
I pretty much agree with Dave. As I have written quite a few times, I think there may very well be something beyond/behind/before/embedded in the material world in which we live, but I don't think we have any way of knowing what that might be and how it may interact with the material world.jdk
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, Kindly explain, do you or do you not hold to evolutionary materialism and/or a view constructed to be specifically compatible with it, often in the form of the extended more or less Darwinist — that is evolutionary materialistic — picture of origins from hydrogen to humans? KF
No. I have no idea whether materialism is true. I do doubt that there is a higher being guiding the universe through its development, although I can't rule it out.daveS
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 121
Charles @ 116: I think you go a little far and too close to ad hominem. I suggest, you pull back. KF
Good point. rvb8 is intellectually honest, fair minded, courageously enlightening the Chinese populace, whereas I am lying.Charles
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
DS, Kindly explain, do you or do you not hold to evolutionary materialism and/or a view constructed to be specifically compatible with it, often in the form of the extended more or less Darwinist -- that is evolutionary materialistic -- picture of origins from hydrogen to humans? KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
F/N: As a bridge to where I am going, let me here clip Plato in The Laws, Bk X as he goes to the point of a cosmological design inference in the context of first setting aside evolutionary materialism as nihilistic and so absurd:
Athenian Stranger: [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . . [[I]f impious discourses were not scattered, as I may say, throughout the world, there would have been no need for any vindication of the existence of the Gods-but seeing that they are spread far and wide, such arguments are needed; and who should come to the rescue of the greatest laws, when they are being undermined by bad men, but the legislator himself? . . . . Ath. Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators; and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care, for their impiety is a very serious matter; they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument, but they lead away the minds of others: that is my opinion of them. Cle. You are right; but I should like to know how this happens. Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
Food for sobering thought. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
jdk, I also agree with your #117. I find the notion that modern scientific theories would be subject to natural selection to be very odd.daveS
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
KF,
Please answer the challenge already on the table. KF
Your "challenge" is to defend a view which I don't hold; I'm not interested in that at the moment.daveS
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
to kf at 122: I wasn't addressing you or any of your questions. I was responding to Dave.jdk
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 18