Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
kf, what Ruse and Wilson think is irrelevant to this discussion with me. And the fact that there are similarities across cultures is quite explainable by the fact that there are basic human characteristics that underlie the large diversity of cultures. For instance, in virtually all (I believe) cultures, people demonstrate pleasure and show affection towards others with a smile. That's part of our nature. So, again, I agree that people not only have a moral sense and that certain commonalities run throughout cultures in general. I also agree that theism is one metaphysical worldview way of explaining this. However, this is the key point, a worldview such as I have described is also an equally valid metaphysical worldview that some see as accounting for the human condition more accurately. It is not incoherent nor self-refuting. So, I don't think you need to, for my part, continue to make assertions about how our moral sense points to an objective core. Rather, I'd like you to address your claim that all other worldviews are logically deficient.jdk
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
JDK, if our sense of being under obligation is little more than a disguised fear of revenge (euphemistically presented as an illusion that gets us to co-operate yielding higher reproductive potential thence an evolutionary pressure . . . cf Ruse and Wilson et al, who remain highly relevant in the wider context, never mind your particular views), it is delusional. If on the other hand, there are moral SET's, morality has an objective core and we can properly ask, where can it find a root in our world. Hence, as already linked. Likewise, if moral errors can exist -- cannibalism for instance, genocide, sadism and destructive exploitation of children for sick pleasure etc, nihilism and more, then that too points to the objectivity of core, corrective moral truth. And, that many across ages and views catch a glimpse of such, is unsurprising. And BTW, C S Lewis long ago compiled a demonstration of just how much moral consensus there actually is . . . there is a tendency to highlight disagreements without that balance. I recall, there are few or less cultures that celebrate cowardice in battle. A Victoria Cross, Medal of Honor, Hero of the Soviet Union or the equivalent, draw near universal respect -- that should tell us something. Later. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
I understand real world issues, kf, so take your time if you continue to care to respond. However, my views are less "radically relativist" than materialism's. And I have replied with relevant comments to the cannibal post here So there are still two points you haven't responded to with other than the same rhetorical assertions: You write,
Given the implication of our sense of being under binding obligation being a delusion ...
Our moral sense is not an delusion. It is common to connect it with a sense of strong cultural obligations, including religious one, but I have explained that this arises from our human social and psychological nature, not necessarily from a connection to some aspect of the root-level of reality. Just because I deny a root-level source of morality does not mean that I don't understand and acknowledge that human beings have a moral sense. Human beings have lots of characteristics related to needs for such things as food, sex, love, social approval, and so on. Those are all related to us being human beings. However, assuming that therefore those are related to the root-level of reality is an anthropomorphic projection. You write,
given the pervasive nature including the responsible part of responsible, rational discussion, issues of the incoherence of radical relativism would apply.
How? What "issues of radical relativism apply"? What is incoherent about my views on the existential nature of our choices and judgments, moral and otherwise? Especially pay attention to the points I made in the cannibal post:
My position is not a laissez faire approach to human interaction (or what you have called a “moral relativist” approach). My approach is an engaged approach, whereby I (this is my chosen attitude) owe it to the collective well-being of the world around me to judge the moral positions of others. I then choose at times to either support or oppose certain ones which I consider important enough, and for which I have the means to be effective. This should be clear: there is a vast range of moral issues, of varying importance, and so we all adopt a “live and let live” attitude towards some things and an “I can’t accept that” attitude towards others. We are all judges. Making judgments is at the heart of what it is to be an actively engaged human being. This is one of the principles of the existentialism that I listed back at 286 when I made an effort to lablel and describe myself.
jdk
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
JDK, I am under the press of RW issues, hence I have been selective. That said, while you seem to have a different w/v than evolutionary materialism, you have evidently taken radically relativist views regarding moral government. Given the implication of our sense of being under binding obligation being a delusion, and given the pervasive nature including the responsible part of responsible, rational discussion, issues of the incoherence of radical relativism would apply. Sorry to just be in outline right now. Eugen's -- was it him? -- Cannibals comment is relevant too. KFkairosfocus
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
You have never explained why you think the position I have advocated is incoherent or self-refuting. All you do is repeat the same rhetoric over and over, and refer to people who hold different positions than I do. Explain why the position I outline here and here is self-refuting. You made a challenge and I responded. I have put another "serious candidate on the table." The ball is now in your court: why does the position I describe fall into incoherence?jdk
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
JDK, I of course gave a mathematical case as a commonplace illustration, not as an invite for a side track. I think we can take it that you imply, yes, the case of incoherence does mean that a purely logical issue can be relevant to truth. Which, since 413, is what I have repeatedly pointed out. Now, too, when a scheme of thought entails that our moral compass-sense is a delusion (e.g. cf Ruse and Wilson et al), that taints all of mindedness and in fact is a case of incoherence, including of course self-referential. So, it is not just a matter of perceptions and opinions differing . . . which is a standard relativist's retort to just about anything. In short, I have highlighted that we commonly see schemes of thought that would set loose grand delusion through utter incoherence, and that such schemes can therefore be set aside. This leaves on the table, that our sense that we are morally governed is objectively real -- indeed, in offering an argument you expect me to be so governed by a sense of duties to truth, reason etc. The question then becomes, that such can only be founded at world-root level, in a root that inextricably fuses is and ought. There is a serious candidate on the table [ethical theism], the challenge is to put up another that does not fall into incoherence etc. KFkairosfocus
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
kf: First I think I've made some relevant remarks in the other thread, at 300 and 301. kf, of course I understand contradiction, and proof by contradiction. My guess is that you bring this up because you regularly refer to other points of view as "self-refuting", so this is worth discussing in reference to what I said in 413. In 413 I wrote,
Arguments involve both logic and statements about the world, including about people’s values, emotions, informed conclusions, worldview assumptions, etc. One should be logical in structuring one’s statements and the connections between them, but logic itself doesn’t determine whether those statements about the world are true, or not.
Let's discuss this in reference to your "self-refuting" claims. A classic case of proof by contradiction is proving that sqrt(2) is irrational by assuming first that sqrt(2) is rational, and then showing a contradiction. I know you are quite familiar with this. Since this takes place in a purely logical/mathematical context, all the various terms and assertions are well defined, such as the fact that every even number can be written as 2n, where n is an integer. However, if we take at a look at the subject we are discussing, moral behavior by human beings, there are a number of things that are not analogous to the mathematical situation. First there are facts about the nature of human beings which are, while debatable, rooted in empirical investigations. Second, there are alo metaphysical assumptions about the root level of reality and our ability to know anything about it which are definitely debatable. So an argument that the root-level of reality contains OUGHT, and that we are governed by it, is not at all analogous to something like saying the sqrt (2) is irrational: it can't be decided by a purely logical argument because many of the component parts of the argument involve empirically grounded conclusions and/or unprovable metaphysical assumptions. So your statement that such alternative points of view are self-refuting is not solid. This is not a case where pure logic can resolve the issue. As I have said in the other thread, your belief that it is self-refuting is because of your metaphysical presupposition that any denial of a root-level OUGHT is ipso facto delusional. The contradiction exist only because you have set up an unjustified inviolate either/or dichotomy. not because of anything analogous to the type of proof by contradiction which occurs in pure logic.jdk
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
JDK, quite a few times now, I have pointed out how if a claim say C on being drawn out implication by implication leads to the case x AND NOT-x, then it has shown itself to be implicitly self contradictory, thus self refuting or self-falsifying. Thus, NOT-C is true. That is when the logic of a claim leads to self contradiction, the claim shows itself to be false. This directly means that there is a very important case where purely logical considerations do speak to matters of truth and falsity. A case commonly used in arguments in mathematics etc on proof by reduction to absurdity. If, in discussing validity vs soundness, we miss out this very important case, we have drawn too sharp a line between logic and truth. And, it has seemed to me that your statements in 413 missed that key point. I have pointed this out several different ways in recent days. KF PS: In another thread, the issue comes up on relativising moral government. That's why someone is raising the issue of cannibals.kairosfocus
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
kf, You quote me as saying,
One should be logical in structuring one’s statements and the connections between them, but logic itself doesn’t determine whether those statements about the world are true, or not.
and then respond,
several days ago now you made an overly sharp distinction, stipulating that logic and truth are different considerations ... I think that sort of view may come from pressing a bit too hard on the well known difference between valid arguments whereby conclusions follow from premises and sound ones, whereby in addition premises are true and conclusions will be true.
I think I am saying what you are saying when you write that there is a "difference between valid arguments whereby conclusions follow from premises and sound ones, whereby in addition premises are true and conclusions will be true" How is my distinction "overly sharp" and "pressing a bit too hard"? For instance, could you write a short sentence explaining the difference between the purely logical structure of an argument and sound reasoning which must include both correct logic and statements we believe are true about whatever is the subject of our reasoning. How would you state this in a better way so that the distinction wasn't "overly sharp"? And you write,
I have simply been pointing out that if a scheme of thought or claim leads to logical incoherence, it falsifies itself
And I have agreed with that. However, you haven't pointed to anything I've said to which that applies.jdk
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
JDK, several days ago now you made an overly sharp distinction, stipulating that logic and truth are different considerations -- and if that is what you believe that should be readily accessible to your memory. I think that sort of view may come from pressing a bit too hard on the well known difference between valid arguments whereby conclusions follow from premises and sound ones, whereby in addition premises are true and conclusions will be true. I have simply been pointing out that if a scheme of thought or claim leads to logical incoherence, it falsifies itself -- that is a truth result coming from logical considerations involving ex falso quodlibet. I have used the case of evo mat scientism as a capital case in point. I believe you will recall from math how often a proof of a claim X is made by proposing instead not-X then deriving a contradiction. Thus not of not-X, so X. KF PS: Just found it at 413:
413 jdkMay 14, 2017 at 5:19 pm (Edit) I think the issue is the one I brought up in 398. Arguments involve both logic and statements about the world, including about people’s values, emotions, informed conclusions, worldview assumptions, etc. One should be logical in structuring one’s statements and the connections between them, but logic itself doesn’t determine whether those statements about the world are true, or not.
kairosfocus
May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
I read all that before, and still don't know what points of mine you are referring to, because you aren't specific. The sentence you bolded is about evolutionary materialistic scientism, but I'm not talking about evolutionary materialistic scientism, so I don't see how that applies to anything I've said. You write, "it illustrates the point that a purely logical result, reduction to absurdity by self contradiction and incoherence, is enough to show that the scheme that is self-contradictory refutes and falsifies itself." Of course a system that is self-contradictory refutes itself, but how does that apply to what I've written? Could you at least tell me what post above you are referring to, and then quote which statements of mine you are particularly referring to?jdk
May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
F/N: let me roll forward no 79:
79 kairosfocus April 9, 2017 at 2:57 am (Edit) FFT2: What about worldviews and critically aware worldview stances? world·view (wûrld?vyo?o?) n. 1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. In both senses also called Weltanschauung. [Translation of German Weltanschauung.] American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Welt•an•schau•ung (?v?lt??n??a? ??) n. German. a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity’s relation to it. [literally, world-view] Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. Obviously, everyone has a perspective, from which s/he interprets and acts into the world. The issue is, is that view sound or at least reasonably and responsibly tenable? That leads to the issues of first philosophy, here metaphysics, best understood as, roughly, the critical assessment of worldviews. Such involves, comparative difficulties — all major options will face difficulties, mysteries etc [Phil being the study of hard but profound questions, those with no easy answers!] — across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (elegantly simple without being either an ad hoc patchwork or simplistic). A good first point is, that any claim A can be challenged, leading to B held to ground it. But B is then open to challenge, thus C, D . . . Such poses the issue of the triple challenge of worldview rooting: infinite regress is absurd and unworkable, circularity by which some P depends on some Q and the reverse is grand question-begging, so the only viable option is some finitely remote start-point F . . . the faith-point . . .that embeds self-evident plumbline truths [criteria of testing other claims, e.g implications of distinct identity], and has fleshed out a coherent, factually adequate and explanatorily defensible framework for understanding the world. Such avoids question-begging by being open to comparative difficulties. A good worldview is then a reasonable, responsible faith resting on a position that meets the comparative difficulties tests. It will be argued onward that ethical theism meets this test,and that by highly relevant contrast, evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers does not, cannot — they are irretrievably incoherent and necessarily self-falsifying. Unfortunately, our civilisation has in significant quarters abandoned what is sound in favour of what is unsound and has embarked on a march of patently ruinous folly.
Observe, general, civilisational focus, precisely as I stated. KF PS: I repeat, the issue is that logic alone can falsify a system when it turns out to be irretrievably incoherent, so the distinction you drew above on that subject goes too far. And evolutionary materialism is a major, commonplace case in point of an utterly incoherent and self-falsified system. That is its relevance to you, it illustrates the point that a purely logical result, reduction to absurdity by self contradiction and incoherence, is enough to show that the scheme that is self-contradictory refutes and falsifies itself.kairosfocus
May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
440 was addressed to me and then said, "This point on the intersection of logic and truth, is directly relevant to points you made above." That's why I thought that perhaps you thought that "evo mat scientism" applied to me, because you said it was "directly relevant" to what I had written. I'll note that you haven't explained why what you write about "evo mat scientism" is directly relevant to my "points above", and in fact it's not even clear what "points above" you are referring to. So if you're interested in replying further, perhaps you could, as I said, be more specific: What "points above" are you referring to, "and what point on the intersection of logic and truth" have you made that is relevant to my points. Until you can be more specific, your post at 440 is fairly substantially unclear.jdk
May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
JDK, you are not the sole focus of concern. In the wider context, this is a significant example. KFkairosfocus
May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
??? But I am not discussing "evo mat scientism" So be more specific: which point "on the intersection of logic and truth, is directly relevant to points you made above."jdk
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
JDK, I have given evo mat scientism as a typical example, one highly relevant to the present ruinous march of folly of our civilisation. It also, by virtue of its self-referential incoherence, illustrates how a purely logical consideration can speak to truth. That which is in irretrievable self contradiction falsifies itself. This point on the intersection of logic and truth, is directly relevant to points you made above. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
kf, I understand what worldviews are, both from a philosophical and anthropological point of view. Also, you write,
... evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers does not, cannot
I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that I am not discussing, and certainly not advocating, materialism. FYI and FTR, I posted a lengthy description of my views about metaphysical worldviews at https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fft-seversky-and-the-is-ought-gap/#comment-631072.jdk
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
JDK, perhaps 79 above may help on the question of "assumptions," including presuppositions or as I hav e informally called them, first plausibles. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
JDK, Kindly note on logic in argument from 408 above to you:
it is good that we start from key common ground on the import of distinct identity. As for deep rooted, multifaceted incoherence of evo mat scientism, that is directly tied to LNC. It is also the case that an irretrievably incoherent scheme of thought is necessarily false, so I must disagree, the core laws do in fact also speak to truth; as proof by reduction of alternative to absurdity routinely applies. I agree, if we focus on the issues on the merits and deal with that, it would make for a better discussion. Unfortunately, circumstances in today’s atmosphere, too often are not like that . . .
As touching definitions, there is nothing special there, though issues of epistemology and worldviews arise. Kindly note, ostensive definition by pointing to key examples is maybe antecedent to precising descriptions, necessary and sufficient conditions, or genus-difference. And, definitions can be loaded, as with the attempt over the past 20 years to redefine science as in effect applied atheism. Definition goes far beyond logic to issues of truth, warrant, conception, complexity, duly balanced and corrective statement, and much more. Grudem's point applies. Also, in many cases, there will be no good precising definitions, even now what life is is not well defined save by cases in point and a conceptual framework. Where of course biology is the science that studies life. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
I also am discussing the role of logic in argument, and particularly the role definitions play. I haven't been discussing abortion itself, in the sense of advocating any positions on the subject, and am glad to let the subject drop.jdk
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Eugen@433, Mayor Jim will attend the opening of an envelope.hammaspeikko
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
KF #407 I certainly agree with you that post-Goedel science is a lot more modest than it was :) Truth is a Who, not a what.EugeneS
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Sorry for sidetracking but this is somewhat tied to recent discussion. Our son went with a group to March for Life in Ottawa last week. Organizers asked Mayor of Ottawa to raise pro life flag for few hours during the event. He refused. Mayor will fly any other flag happily for a day or a week in case of his holly beloved rainbow flag. This is an example of how state suppresses free expression and coaxes the the minds of its citizens by allowing some symbols and not the others. Symbol control is very important process in totalitarian system.Eugen
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus@428, I really don't understand why you arguing about this. All I have said is that logic alone does not tell the whole story. Armand Jacks' argument that we are being logically inconsistent when we state that the fetus has a right to life but that we don't want to impose the same penalty for killing a fetus that we apply to killing a baby or a child, is absolutely correct. This is not logically consistent. But being logically consistent in this case (eg, charging a woman with murder), is not the right thing to do. Sometimes trying to justify an action based on logic is wrong. That is all I am trying to say. I used Armand Jacks' argument simply because it was the example that came is o my mind first.hammaspeikko
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
F/N: Remember, dozens of millions paid with their lives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CitfXK_BvY&ytbChannel=afroknot (And if you think this is a galaxy far away and long ago, cf. here on where "microaggressions" is going on a PC-dominated Uni nearer to you than you imagine.) KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
F/N: Hippocratic oath, classical form, original c. C5 BC:
I swear by Apollo the Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture. To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else. I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein. Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets. Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I transgress it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.
Even the pagans knew better, 2400 years ago. For shame! KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
JDK, I suggest you read the just above to HP. As for oh, we did not suggest retroactive laws, that is a nonsense talking point, given the nature of murder in law. I think you should be aware that there is a reason why there usually are no statutes of limitation on murder, an ultimate crime: if abortion is legislatively deemed murder as of date X+1 in law, but not so as of date X or before, that cannot be borne by the system of laws without wreaking havoc on the protection of human life. Just ponder: precedent. Likewise, I (and others -- this follows other discussions in recent weeks and months in other threads) have pointed out that millions have been systematically deceived as to what they are doing, making the issue of criminal intent a material factor; in effect we have had an induced mass delusion that has to be reckoned with. All of this leads to the need to take Wilberforce's approach in the face of deeply institutionalised evils that lead to mass bloodshed: reform, animated by spiritual-moral awakening. In that light, I notice the repeated disregarding of such material factors, and am forced to challenge you to consider just what you are enabling by the sort of arguments you continue to put up.* KF *PS: And no, there is no need for me to apologise for or retract that phrase. I put up my own argument further above, on seeing the tangent game being played, and I stand by it. PPS: As for, oh none of us suggested violent, radical revolution; that is half-truth. You did not say so in words, but in fact that would patently be required to force through such a law as was rhetorically put up as a strawman target, and to enforce it. The specific contrast I have made by way of citing the case of Wilberforce over the course of months (which has been studiously ignored) brings the matter out plainly. If someone still has doubts, just look at the way that choice of judges for the US Supreme Court is handled given the entrenchment of the unjust decree from the bench of 1973. I only mention the kind of marches, riots and suppression of freedom of speech, of association and petition that we have been seeing for quite some time now, multiplied by slanders about Fascism and punching nazis. Then, ask what would be required to establish under force of law the imposition of a murder charge for abortion. The irresponsibility of the holocaust-enabling rhetoric used here at UD for months, is plain.kairosfocus
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
HP, a key issue in complex situations is materiality. An argument -- such as AJ put up [and no I am not going to be rhetorically induced into apologising for a simple word choice . . . ] -- that draws its conclusion by disregarding or ignoring material factors is unavoidably imprudent and unsound. In simple terms: a half-truth is a whole lie, and builds or enables a whole march of folly. Here, the key point you and others are studiously ignoring and disregarding is this: mass slaughter of posterity in the womb across a generation now is a deeply institutionalised, massively present factor, turning on utter distortion of value of human life, corruption of medical ethics and practice, warping of law, deceitful agit-prop in media and education, and much more. Such has to be addressed through reformation, which has to be broad based and in the end spiritually rooted; or, you end up with either dead letter laws that are unenforceable, or you push through a radical, ruthless revolution, which predictably ends in dictatorship and rivers of innocent blood -- both of which are destructive and devillishly futile. That's a key lesson taught by Wilberforce, by contrast with the French Revolution or the Prohibition era in the US (now extending into what looks like a failing war on drugs . . . a very bad sign). Not least, such is because we are responsibly and rationally free, morally governed creatures, and given the dangerous implications of all of this chaos and folly for that attractive but inherently unstable form of government, democracy. Democracies have to be stabilised through a spiritually and morally sound culture or, predictably they decay into suicidal marches of folly; as has happened from Athens to Wiemar and beyond. That is the ruinous fire we are playing with today in our civilisation. For just one instance, beyond a certain point the decent, honourable and courageous will conclude that there is no honour in putting lives or reputations and careers on the line to defend from enemies foreign and domestic, or to offer oneself in civil leadership. That is tipping point, and it is frighteningly close. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
I'm sorry I brought it up. It was not my intention to start an abortion debate. I was just using Armand Jacks' argument as a case where his logic was perfectly sound but that we often ignore this logic when deciding on the most appropriate response for certain actions. His logic was sound when he said that there was a logical inconsistent between our belief that a fetus has the right to life and the reluctance to impose the same penalty to those who kill this life as we impose on those who kill a post birth human. My point is that we often choose to make decisions that are logically inconsistent with the factors leading to that decision. It is my belief that it is better to acknowledge these inconsistencies when they arise rather than to twist ourselves in knots and deceive ourselves that there is no inconsistency.hammaspeikko
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
kf, I haven't "put up" anything. I wrote,
Yes, I think Armand Jack’s point is that if one considers abortion murder (which involves one’s definition of murder) the logical conclusion is that one who aborts should be charged with murder. Conversely, the many people who support existing laws about abortion do not consider abortion murder (and of course neither does the law.) Again, it is the definition of murder which is the issue, which is much more than a purely logical issue.
These were some points about different perspectives on the situation. I didn't advocate for anything. Also, there is no implication, direct or otherwise, that any changes in laws would be retrooactive. I don't think new laws are ever retroactive. So I have no idea where you are getting that from.jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 18

Leave a Reply