Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sean Carroll: “Nowadays, when a more scientific worldview has triumphed and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist . . . ” — really?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Carroll, here, was responding to a Weekly Standard cover article on the reactions to philosopher Nagel’s publication of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False :

What I find particularly interesting in the captioned clip is the laudatory reference to “a more Scientific WORLDVIEW” which is immediately problematic, as worldviews are matters of philosophical points of view and linked cultural agendas. That is, they are categorically distinct from science in any proper sense.

A clue for what is really meant comes from what immediately follows: “and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist.” Really, and how can science actually establish such a thing, especially in a world with literally billions of theists, many being reasonably educated and informed? Plainly, what is actually implied is that in the academy and among the post-Christian Western chattering classes, evolutionary materialistic scientism is a dominant and in fact domineering ideology.

One that, in fact, rather inconveniently has had a 100+ year track record of not just marginalising, silencing or expelling critics or doubters, but a body count northwards of 100 millions. (So much for the snide characterisation of the West’s Christian heritage by the Torquemada standard. [Cf. here on in context on the sins and blessings of Christendom.])

We could make reference to a well known cat out of the bag remark in NYRB by Richard Lewontin on how a priori materialism has been imposed on science, or the like. However, that is liable to simply invite troll rants, let the link stand for those who need to re-familiarise themselves with the record.

Instead, let us simply note that in the captioned, Carroll more than amply confirms the point regarding the cat Lewontin let out of the bag. Where, too, scientism — the notion that, roughly, evolutionary materialism dominated, Big-S “Science” is “the only begetter of truth [and thus, knowledge]” — is immediately self-refuting. For, this claim is a claim about philosophy that tries to discredit such claims. Unfortunately, that is not going to help those trapped in the evo mat cave escape their bonds and delusions. The issue is how to move the Overton Window:

Of course, we have already taken step 1, by headlining and briefly exposing immediately fatal errors on the public record for one of the better known spokesmen for evolutionary materialistic scientism [= “naturalism,” more or less].

What can we do for step 2?

We have to look at warrant for theism (at least at intro to 101 level), and in my view a good place to start is an article responding to a dismissive article that popped up here in the Caribbean about a year ago. Here we go:

>>Over the years, many millions have met and been transformed through meeting God in the face of Christ. This includes countless Jamaicans [and many other people across the Caribbean and wider world]. It also includes many famed scholars, eminent scientists and leaders of powerful reformations. Logically, if just one of these millions has actually been reconciled with God through Christ, God must be real and the gospel must be true. (Where, if instead so many are deeply delusional, that would undermine the rational credibility of the human mind.)

However, for some years now various voices have tried to dismissively question God, the gospel and Christians. So, it is not unexpected to see Mr Gordon Robinson writing in the Gleaner recently (on Sunday, August 26, 2018),  about alleged “dangerous dogma promulgated by the Church and its many brainwashed surrogates,” “perverse propaganda spread by Christian churches,” “sycophants” and the like.

Along the way, he managed to ask a pivotal question: “Who/what is God?”

Regrettably, he also implied outright fraud by church leaders: “Either the Church has NO CLUE about who/what God really is, or it deliberately misrepresents God’s essence in order to frighten people into becoming church members and tithing. Nothing else makes sense.”

Fig 1 DNA, Showing the Genetic Code (HT ResearchGate)

In fact, a simple Internet search might give a better answer. For, thinkers such as a Thomas Aquinas or an Augustine of Hippo or a Paul of Tarsus or even a Wayne Grudem or a William Lane Craig have long since credibly addressed the idea of God and systematic theology at a little more sophisticated level than Sunday School lessons or Internet Atheist web sites. In so doing, they have made responsible cases that rise above the level of caricatures of the art on the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling.

We may begin with Paul in Romans 1, 57 AD: “Rom 1:19 . . . what can be known about God is plain to [people], because God has shown it to them. 20 For [God’s] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So [people] are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”  [ESV]

Here, one of the top dozen minds of our civilisation first points out how our morally governed interior life and what we see in the world all around jointly call us to God our Creator. But, too often we suppress the force of that inner testimony and outer evidence. (This, predictably, leads to unsound thinking and destructive deeds stemming from benumbed consciences and en-darkened minds.)

For one, consider how for sixty years now we have known that the DNA in the cells of our bodies has in it complex, alphanumeric, algorithmic code that is executed through molecular nanotechnology to build proteins, the workhorses of biological life. That’s why Sir Francis Crick wrote to his son Michael on March 19, 1953 that “we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another).”

Crick’s letter

Figure 2: Crick’s March 19, 1953 letter, p. 5 with a highlight (Fair use)

Yes, alphanumeric code (so, language!), algorithms (so, purpose!), i.e. intelligent design of life from the first living cell on. Including, us. No wonder the dean of the so-called New Atheists was forced to admit that Biology studies complicated things that give a strong appearance of design. 

1947 saw the advent of the transistor age, allowing storage of a single bit of information in a tiny electronic wonder. We have since advanced to computers based on silicon chips comparable in size to a thumb-nail, with millions of transistors. These microchips and support machinery process many millions of instructions per second and have storage capacities of many gigabytes. Coded electronic communication signals routinely go across millions of miles through the solar system.  Every one of these devices and systems required careful design by highly educated engineers, scientists and programmers. The living, self-replicating cell’s sophistication dwarfs all of these; yet we question the all-knowing God, the author of life.

A nerve cell

Next, Mr. Robinson and others inevitably appeal to our known duty to truth, right reasoning, fairness, prudent judgement, etc.  But, where did that inner moral law (testified to by our consciences) come from? Surely, it is not a delusion; or else responsible, freely rational discussion would collapse into nihilistic chaos: might and manipulation (= “power and propaganda”) make ‘right,’ ‘rights,’ ‘justice,’ ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge’ etc. Instead, our conscience-guarded hearts and minds clearly show the Creator’s design that we freely live by the light and law of truth and right.

Such considerations – and many more – point us to the only serious candidate for the source of reality that can bridge IS and OUGHT: the inherently good (and wise) Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. Who is fully worthy of our loyalty and of humble, responsible, reasonable service through doing the good. Then, we may readily draw out the classic understanding of God described in scripture and studied in systematic theology: all-good, eternal, creator and Lord with sound knowledge and full capability to work out his good purposes in the right way at the right time. [Cf. Grudem, at Web Archive, here.]

Moreover, what we most of all need to know about God is taught by Jesus the Christ, recorded in scripture within eye-witness lifetime then accurately handed down to us for 2000 years now, at fearsome cost: the blood of the martyrs. Martyrs, who had but one incentive: that they directly knew and must peacefully stand by the eternal truth – cost what it will. They refused to be frightened by dungeon, fire or sword, much less mere rhetoric. Why would thousands die horribly to promote a known lie?

[I add, Strobel on the Case for Christ:]

Their record is that Christ is the express image of his Father, Logos – Cosmos-ordering Reason himself, prophesied Messiah, the Saviour who in love died for us on a cross. He rose from the dead as Lord with 500 eye-witnesses, precisely fulfilling over three hundred prophecies that were long since recorded in the Old Testament. (See esp. Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12, c. 700 BC.) He ascended to his Father in the presence of the apostles. He shall return as eternal Judge, before whom we must all account. (Yes, professing and “backsliding” Christians too.) The Bible also records Jesus’ prayer for us: “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and [“thy Son”] Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.” [John 17:1- 5, cf. 3:16.]

That is the truth witnessed by the church, whether it was 33 AD in Jerusalem before an angry Sanhedrin, or 50 AD before the laughing Athenians (who had built a public monument to their ignorance of God), or today . . .>>

So, Mr Carroll, no, it is not so that “everyone knows that God doesn’t exist.” Indeed, just the opposite is true: arguably, millions, having met and been transformed by God, know God. They don’t just know about him.

Perhaps, it is time for a more sober-minded discussion on the roots of reality. END

F/N: For reference, I attach, first on turning back at the brink:

Next, on the Overton Window (vs Plato’s cave of manipulated shadow-shows:

Then, on a model of key spheres and sources of influence:

Then, on a model of political possibilities, drawing out the significance of Constitutional Democracy:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

Also, on law:

Noting Augustine and Aquinas:

And Aquinas on law in general:

Comments
JAD, the trio, Darwin, Marx and Freud come as a package. They overlap and there are influences, but the issue is their joint contribution to the radical mindset that plagues our day. KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
EG, in order to entertain the notion that God does not exist (given that he is a serious candidate necessary being as world-root in a world with responsible, rational, morally governed creatures) you first need to give good warrant that he is impossible of being and/or that he is not in fact a serious candidate NB. This, you have not done, which is precisely a problem tackled in the OP. Where, you restate the problem of undermining of moral government as though it were an alternative solution. Recall, manifestly, even our minds are so governed; so, you imply grand delusion, an absurdity which would discredit discussion and the credibility of reason. KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT
How much influence did Darwin and his theories have on Freud? That’s something that scholar’s debate. Here are a couple of quotes from a 1991 book review published in the New Scientist which explores that question.
In publications and letters Freud referred to Darwin about 20 times, generally with respect, but did not endorse the idea of natural selection. However, other biological notions, many no longer considered true, were crucial to Freud’s thinking. Frank J Sulloway (Freud: Biologist of the Mind), among others, has suggested that only some of Freud’s theories derived from clinical work; the rest were based upon biological and neuro-physiological assumptions of his day. Lucille Ritvo’s book is another investigation into the sources of 19th-century biology of Freud’s theories… Ritvo, a historian of science and medicine, says her own psychoanalysis relieved her ‘of such handicapping neurotic debris of infancy and childhood and ambivalence, penis envy, and a too-strict superego’. She wishes to redeem Freud’s reputation as a Darwinian. She quotes Freud as saying that, as a medical student, Darwin’s theories had strongly attracted him. She found eight books by Darwin in Freud’s library. According to Ritvo, Freud said that if he had to name the 10 most significant books, he would include Darwin’s Descent of Man. Ritvo points out that Freud listed ‘the study of evolution’ as essential to ‘a scheme of training for analysts’. She says that nowhere in Freud’s psychoanalytic writing did he mention Lamarck.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12917556-600-review-freuds-debt-to-darwin/#ixzz62L0iyOwC However, there is no doubt that Darwin’s theories are widely used to justify a naturalistic and atheistic world view.john_a_designer
October 14, 2019
October
10
Oct
14
14
2019
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
This leaves us with the fact that if God does not exist civilization is, and always has been, a social construct that is at the whim of the majority, the manipulative and the powerful. Under this possibility imposing a God as a governor on society would simply be a delusion. Just a devil’s advocate food for thought.Ed George
October 14, 2019
October
10
Oct
14
14
2019
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
JAD, yes, Darwin, Marx and Freud each contributed much to our modern dilemmas and it is unsurprising to see influences of each of those three C19 "evergreen" ideas surfacing and resurfacing as roots of plausible rhetoric and agit prop etc long after their formal systems have each been shattered through collision with unyielding facts and cogent analysis. That said, we need to note how UD is under perpetual critical (and, outright hostile) scrutiny, then multiply it by the studious relative silence of objectors to the key themes of the OP above, starting with the captioned remarks by Sean Carroll, cosmologist: "Nowadays, when a more scientific worldview has triumphed and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist . . . " No such thing is so, but the cat is yet again let out of the bag, even as Lewontin so clearly let it out of the bag in his 1997 NYRB remark. Let us take due note, and let us read the signs of our times as to where they point to the crumbling cliff's edge underfoot. Wisdom, then, is to turn back now lest we go over as the unsure footing collapses into the abyss. But, nowadays, wisdom, soundness, willingness to turn back from sinful, suicidal folly etc are all at a steep discount. So, as a prospective remnant, let us start afresh from the insights that stem from recognising our inescapably morally governed nature (which implies the possibility of willful resort to wrong, harming and error, thus, sin and properly merited guilt) and let us rebuild our worldviews on safer footing. Footing that engages the roots of reality in a world where IS and OUGHT are necessarily fused in our intellectual, volitional, inner and social lives and so we find a need for the inherently good and utterly wise as necessary being world root. Yet again, against our civilisation, the terrible woes are pronounced:
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! 22 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are heroes at drinking wine And men of strength in mixing intoxicating drinks, 23 Who justify the wicked and acquit the guilty for a bribe, And take away the rights of those who are in the right! 24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire consumes the stubble [from straw] And the dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away like fine dust; Because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts And despised and discarded the word of the Holy One of Israel. [AMP]
2700+ years old and still all too relevant to us, just as they were to our hebraic antecedents. Speaking of which, don't you notice how often these days there is a refusal to acknowledge that the roots of our civilisation are Judaeo-Christian, with the Pauline, gospel based Christian synthesis of the inheritance of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome being pivotal? For example, ever so many are quick to point to the Greek-Roman roots of democratic government and the linked ideas of natural law thought while refusing to acknowledge the Judaeo-Christian synthesis that so heavily shaped how that system of thought was rehabilitated in the aftermath of the reformation. They deny the significance of the double-covenant understanding of nationhood and just government under God with consent of the governed that say underlies -- nay, is directly built into -- the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the US DoI 1776 and its direct (but mostly forgotten) antecedent, the Dutch DoI, 1581. Let us note the almost creedal force of the 1776 document:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people [--> nationhood] to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another [--> ancestral nationhood, now leading to secession for breach of justice] and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> Natural law framework informed by the heritage of Christendom] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [--> framing justice, laying out rights and limits of just government, with rights of remonstrance, petition, intercession, reform and replacement, including by revolution/secession under lower magistrates] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security [--> just secession and independence] . . .
The Carroll remark, of course, is a manifest case of that denial and dismissal. KFkairosfocus
October 13, 2019
October
10
Oct
13
13
2019
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
How does Freud relate to all of this? My theory is that after World War 2 the modern secular-progressive movement co-opted concepts from Freudian psychology and turned it into an ideology. The evidence? Freudian terms like repression, projection, guilt complex and phobia’s-- like the pejorative “homophobia”-- which have been all co-opted as part of the left’s ideological vocabulary. A couple of key passages to understanding this ideological shift come out of Freud’s book, Civilization and Its Discontents.
"Thus we know of two origins of the sense of guilt: one arising from fear of an authority, and the other, later on, arising from fear of the super-ego. The first insists upon a renunciation of instinctual satisfactions; the second, as well as doing this, presses for punishment, since the continuance of the forbidden wishes cannot be concealed from the super-ego."
Freud also says that a person’s sense of guilt grows out of not simply having “done the bad thing but has only recognised in himself an intention to do it…” A Christian-theist, on the other hand, would argue that our existential sense of guilt or moral conscience comes from God, therefore there is an objective moral standard that transcends time and culture. Of course, this standard can be distorted and perverted by culture and society, nevertheless, there is an unchangeable moral standard. Freud however was an atheist and rejected the idea of a transcendent moral standard. Our moral standards thus come from society and therefore are human inventions. And since they are human inventions they are subject to modification, change and improvement. Therefore, the traditional and archaic religious based moral standards, which they believe are the source of that guilt, must be suppressed and destroyed. Thus we have a secular-progressive group think which evolved out of the idea of autonomous individual freedom (so-called sexual liberation) and has mutated into a new kind of authoritarianism. Unfortunately, Christians are guilty of abdicating their responsibility of preaching about sin and guilt. Yes, the gospel means good news but it is only good news for those recognise that they have a problem. Sometimes love means tough love confronting out fellow sinners with their sin and guilt.
"I suspect that the reader has the impression that our discussions on the sense of guilt disrupt the framework of this essay: that they take up too much space, so that the rest of its subject-matter, with which they are not always closely connected, is pushed to one side. This may have spoilt the structure of my paper; but it corresponds faithfully to my intention to represent the sense of guilt as the most important problem in the development of civilization and to show that the price we pay for our advance in civilization is a loss of happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt." p. 81
Ironically the self-anointed or “woke” believers in their secular progressive movement are not beneath self-righteous virtue signalling or above shaming or projecting guilt on those with whom they disagree-- those who embrace “traditional” beliefs and values. People who one political candidate in the last U.S. Presidential election referred to as “deplorables.”john_a_designer
October 13, 2019
October
10
Oct
13
13
2019
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
The so-called contemporary secular progressive movement is a dangerous and irrational blend of moral anti-realism (which leads logically to moral relativism and subjectivism) and ideological absolutism spawned by the pseudo-teleology of Marxist-Hegelianism. Again, Darwinian evolution, which most modern secularists still embrace dogmatically, is dys-teleological. There is no intellectually rational or honest basis for any kind of morality, which is culturally or politically binding, based on a belief system which is dys-teleological. So where do modern secular-progressive social-justice warriors get their teleology. They invent it. They make it up whole cloth. For example, if moral subjectivism and relativism are true (which, AGAIN, itself is a self-refuting claim) what is the basis for human rights? Where do our rights come from? Many moral subjectivists or anti-realists argue that we are the ones who invent human rights. For example, J.L. Mackie entitled one of his books, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Mackie was an advocate (I also believe the inventor) of so-called error theory. However, how can metaethical claims about morality and ethics possibly be true if such statements are ruled in error and therefore false a priori? But that’s what Mackie and others have argued. It follows then there can be no such thing as universal human rights. We should be very concerned where all this is leading, because, the rights you presently believe you have and believe are protected by law can be taken away. So called rights according to the subjectivist and relativist are really ad hoc and arbitrary. But also notice how completely dishonest, disingenuous and hypocritical their position is. It seems rather pointless reason with a person who does not understand basic logic. Self-refuting and contradictory propositions cannot possibly be true. That’s a self-evident truth. Why should I, or anyone else trust, a person who has no true and “objective” basis, therefore, no real belief or respect for human rights? Unfortunately this kind of thinking is becoming more widespread and ingrained in in western European and U.S. culture. Former U.S. prosecutor Andrew McCarthy observes: “What the vestiges of Western civilization are coming to: I say something that is true; it hurts your feelings, so — of course — you blow up a building; and it’s my fault.”john_a_designer
October 11, 2019
October
10
Oct
11
11
2019
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
M62 (& JAD): Yes, cultural marxism is marxism and marxism has a bad track record of imposing oppression at the hands of the radicals who have grabbed power. I think the notion that such is "liberation" is only sustained by want of understanding radical factions across history. All of this is why I keep on noting that the USA is in low kinetic, 4th gen civil war already. This points back to the pivotal issue of the thread, Carroll's dubious assertion: "Nowadays, when a more scientific worldview has triumphed and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist . . ." This fails the obvious test, that such claimed general "knowledge" just isn't there and that, given that God is a serious candidate necessary being world root, either he is impossible of being or is actual. Atheists are nowhere near being able to warrant the first, esp. since Plantinga's free will defence shot down their go-to, the problem of evil. But, too, the problem of good is there: how do we warrant the good, absent God without falling into nihilistic might and manipulation make 'good' 'right' 'true' 'justice' 'rights' 'knowledge' etc. They have no good answers and so we see why radicals in power incline to be extremist. Of course, all along they will project the problem to their targets, as Alinsky advocates. Notice, how objection to their latest fashionable perversity or folly X is predictably X-phobia? As in, they claim to be rational and to have cornered the market on rationality. Objection can only be irrational fear and oppression. Resemblance to recent history, current events and predictable trends is NOT coincidental. What we need instead is reformation rooted in worldview considerations that properly bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, recognising that even our rationality is inescapably morally governed. See 73 above. KFkairosfocus
October 11, 2019
October
10
Oct
11
11
2019
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
JAD: Unfortunately, it could get a lot worse. Don't give up your guns.mike1962
October 10, 2019
October
10
Oct
10
10
2019
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Spot on KF. Hideously innumerable, beyond imagination. I'd intended to jest about Sean Carroll's poor, dear, old granny in County Tipperary being inconsolable he'd turned out to be so incorrigible. But nobody's going to guffaw at any quip in the context of abortion.Axel
October 10, 2019
October
10
Oct
10
10
2019
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
F/N: One of the "interesting" responses to Carroll's article is this:
I absolutely hate the consciousness arguments made by people like Nagel. He doesn’t want there to be an explanation. He wants the world to remain mystical. Is the reason because it makes life easier to understand because there is something that can’t be understood (equals nothing to understand)? I think so. I think this is a person justifying their ignorance of a subject. Or like so many religious followers, the idea that there is nothing special about nature brings about a stunning and suddenly tangible realization that we really are weak and powerless compared to nature; an idea that they overcome by believing in an all powerful entity that controls the universe and has our back against anything nature can throw at us. It seems like an egotistical defense mechanism to reject that we are not special in any way at all, that we are only more complex. Proof of the physical description of consciousness being accurate is in the fact that we (an overwhelming majority anyway) can all identify a specific color or a specific sound or a specific smell, without any corrupted influence from other people.
The key failure, to understand that computation on a substrate is categorically, necessarily different from rational, free, inference and decision. Reppert has aptly captured the point, as has been noted here at UD over the years, reflecting Lewis:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
The failure to understand that reduction of mind to computation undermines mind, discredits "understand[ing]" and reason etc, including both Mathematics and science, is routinely missed. That is, the system is incoherent and self referential so necessarily false. The resort to motive mongering psychological projection and dismissal of the strawman so set up, shows the further error of failing to understand the issue of the ontology of roots of reality, thence, broader logic of being. KFkairosfocus
October 10, 2019
October
10
Oct
10
10
2019
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Axel, we have committed the worst -- and ongoing -- holocaust in history in the past generation. That alone is proof enough. KFkairosfocus
October 9, 2019
October
10
Oct
9
09
2019
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
'The increased reporting of these things is a sign that society is no longer tolerating the abuse of women, not a sign of a decline of civilization.' - Ed But, alas, part of its death throes, Eduardo. The evidence of the decline is staggeringly obvious to anyone who grew up after WWI! - during what the French call, 'les Trente Glorieuses'..Axel
October 9, 2019
October
10
Oct
9
09
2019
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
JAD, Hegel's key concept was taken up by Marx and set in the context of a material-economic understanding of historical trajectory. A dominant paradigm and agenda exist but has in it classes that are suppressed: thesis. These find some leadership to pose an anti-thesis, then struggle leads to a "synthesis" or a new order, repeat until in classical Marxist thought the final oppressed class takes over, the proletariat, then a classless society emerges to the golden age. Cultural Marxism recasts in terms of psycho-social identity groups and seems to seek an alphabet soup coalition to overturn class oppression through a long march through institutions. So, every perversity or dysfunction is inverted into a claimed right and democratic institutions are subjected to Plato's mutiny on the ship of state. Somehow, they forget that Plato's point was that such ill-conceived, ill-founded power grabs end in a suicidal looter state. He even pointed out that those who take selfish advantage of education are a particular menace, implying that the sound minority are liable to be locked out and derided. Ac 27 gives a concrete case, whereby we see how Mr Moneybags buys his technicos, and funds manipulation into untruth, imprudence and folly leading to ill advised risk and shipwreck: de-mock-racy supplanting democracy . . . and the failure of Athens led to discredit of democracy for 2,000 years, so that only when external equilibrating supports stabilised could it return, leading to widespread freedom. But freedom can decay into ruinous license thence nihilistic imposition through might and manipulation, thus street theatre media amplified through agit prop and lawfare perverting law and enforcement under false colours of law and justice. This is what we collectively seem determined to learn the hard way once again. KFkairosfocus
October 9, 2019
October
10
Oct
9
09
2019
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
There is no doubt that the typical modern secular-progressive accepts some form of Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism without question. However, this creates a dilemma for them and their social justice agenda which like all such agenda’s must be teleological. Darwinism, after all, eschews any kind of teleological thinking-- instead, there is just mindless herd-like or tribal group think. On the other hand, the typical secularist grew up in a culture which inherited a world view that was shaped by Greek, Roman and Judeo-Christian (so-called western) ideas of progress which are highly teleological. Intentionally or unintentionally they have to co-opt or adapt (with a lot of modification) those ideas to justify their own progressive agenda. Probably no world view has a more linear view of history than Jewish-Christian (J-C) theism. Hegel accepted the J-C linear view of history (he was an observant Lutheran) but cast it in more pantheistic terms, where there were no timeless transcendent truths only evolving ever changing kind of “truths.” Hegel saw the flow of history as a constantly changing yet naturally improving one. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it this way:
History, according to Hegel's metaphysical account, is driven by ideological development. Ideological—and therefore historical—change occurs when a new idea is nurtured in the environment of the old one, and eventually overtakes it. Thus development necessarily involves periods of conflict when the old and new ideas clash.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/ While modern progressives probably don’t see themselves as Hegelian, via cultural Marxism and various other forms of progressive socialism, it appears to me that Hegel’s ideas have had a profound influence on modern thought. For example, the idea of being “on the right side of history” sounds Hegelian, as does the utopian conceit that modern ideas are superior traditional or ancient ones, so those get rejected automatically as racist, sexist, superstitious etc. However, I doubt that contemporary secular progressives are purists in any kind of theoretical sense. There is no doubt a lot of ad hoc thinking that incorporates the ideas of other thinkers including “thinkers” like Nietzche and Freud. Of course, from what I have seen there is a lot of inconsistency and incoherence with present day secular- progressive thinking. (We see that here with irrational pretension and posturing of trolls, drive-bys and sock puppets who are incapable of putting together logically sound arguments.) The agenda of the contemporary secular progressive I think can be understood by three terms they use rhetorically: Progressive (Hegel,) Oppressive (Marx) and Repressive (Freud.) [I’ll comment on these in more detail in later posts.] Both Hegel and Marx saw that at times violence (even war) would be needed to achieve societal change. You can readily see why the progressive PC left thinks nothing of employing bullying tactics to bring about their ideas of social justice-- and be forewarned they are willing to go further. You can perhaps also see how they can hold to positions that are on one hand culturally and morally relativistic yet implemented years or even month later as new moral absolutes. Think, for example, about how quickly same-sex-marriage has been adopted. BTW as is the case of SSM, as can clearly be seen by following the news accounts, they are not beneath using coercion, even the force of law, to get you to accept their beliefs. Unfortunately, it could get a lot worse.john_a_designer
October 8, 2019
October
10
Oct
8
08
2019
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
JAD, what is telling is how we know that UD is subject to constant, hostile scrutiny. For years, the main circle of objectors tried to dismiss for capital example, Lewontin's remark. Now, we have something in a nutshell that cannot be gamed around -- not even the latest stunt, that it is "parody" or "satire" would work. What do we see on the substantial point? Silence. Yes, we see the usual distractors and attempts to turn the latest fashionable perversities and serious [but sexually tinged] disorders into virtues. But no, little or nothing on the substantial issue of a prominent atheism spokesman duly wearing the lab coat and claiming: "Nowadays, when a more scientific worldview has triumphed and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist . . . " Obviously, that knowledge claim (not to mention its pretended universality [presumably among the scientifically aware]) lacks warrant. Further, once we see that we need a necessary being root of reality at finite remove, and that we are morally governed starting with our minds, then we have a bill of requisites, including inherently good, utterly wise, capable of giving rise to worlds with such creatures. Where, too, a serious candidate necessary being is either incoherent and impossible or else actual. Most interesting to see the obvious balk when the bluff is called. KFkairosfocus
October 8, 2019
October
10
Oct
8
08
2019
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
I have said this before, “for meTruth trumps faith” I’ll abandon my beliefs if someone can prove they are false. But that has to be done with real logic, real evidence and real arguments. Mindless posturing and pretension, taunting or baseless/groundless personal opinions are NOT arguments. They are shallow, hollow uninformed opinions which prove nothing except maybe that the person making such arguments is shallow, hollow and uninformed. If atheistic naturalism/materialism is based on reason and “science,” why are our regular interlocutors so afraid in engage us with real evidence based arguments? We know and they know the truth: they don’t have any honest arguments. For example, Darwin who was a committed materialist by the time he wrote, Descent of Man, thought at least he could use his theory of natural selection to explain the origins of morality. Nevertheless, it appears that he had to concede that this would lead to moral relativism. He writes: “If… men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” No naturalistic theory of evolution is sufficient to provide a basis or foundation for interpersonal moral obligations or universal human rights. The so called moral atheists who show up here are only moral because they are co-opting a tradition of moral values and human rights which is historically and culturally based Jewish-Christian thinking and belief. Atheistic naturalism/materialism has contributed virtually nothing to the west’s legacy of moral values and human rights.john_a_designer
October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
F/N: >> Normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. Thus, (c) we can now see that a core of law is built into moral government of our responsible, rational freedom (through our known, inescapable duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including, warrant], sound conscience, neighbourliness [thus, the golden rule], fairness & justice, etc). On these,  (d) we may frame just civil law as comporting with that built-in law of our morally governed nature, towards upholding and defending the civil peace of justice through sound government.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial. Expanding slightly: our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc. Thus, we find morally rooted law built into our morally governed nature, even for our intellectual life. Thus, too, the civil law extends what is already built in, to our social circumstances, turning on issues of prudence, justice and mutual duties; if it is to be legitimate. Notice, this is itself a theory on what law is or at least should be. And yes, all of this is fraught with implications for the roots of reality.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia. F/N2: Likewise, as Ben Mines summarises from Leibniz, maximal goodness, wisdom and power are arguably mutually, inextricably entangled once we understand/accept that the good implies an evident proper end or purpose:
Leibniz has given an argument to show that omniscience and moral perfection [–> also, omnipotence] are mutually inclusive: all freely willed action strives towards some goal; all goals are the pursuit of some good entertained by the agent; [ –> real or imagined?] the scope and quality of entertainable goods is dependent on knowledge; the maximisation of knowledge perfects an agent’s judgment of the good. An evil being therefore lacks perfect knowledge; and lacking perfect knowledge, is not omniscient; and lacking omniscience, cannot be omnipotent since there will be some actions it lacks the knowledge to perform. The proposition, It is possible that a maximally great but evil being exists is therefore broadly incoherent. A being cannot be both evil and maximally great.
 F/N3: This principle of built-in moral government under known law also applies directly to gospel ethics, discipleship and evangelism. For, example, it means that "sin" is not merely an oppressive invention of priestcraft designed to bring us under theocratic tyranny -- which, is the exact implication of many objections to gospel ethics today. Instead, sin is in the first instance willful moral error, defiance therefore of the inherently good and utterly wise Creator who made us, gave us responsible freedom, commanded us to live by love and truth, and gave us sound conscience as a witness. Therefore, too, we have real guilt against the law of our nature, the law of our creator, not just mere painful emotions to deal with. It is in this context that the gospel is good news: in his love, our creator has made a way for us to be forgiven, rescued and transformed.>> KFkairosfocus
October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
JAD, good questions. I hardly expect they will be answered, even as we can see that the Q's and issues in the OP have not been cogently addressed either. I suggest that we recognise that mindedness is inescapably morally governed and that this points to the roots of reality. As the OP highlights. KFkairosfocus
October 6, 2019
October
10
Oct
6
06
2019
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Notice how Ed and Hazel keep trying to smuggle in the idea moral and social progress. But from where do they get the idea of progress? They won’t tell us-- at least I haven’t seen either of them give an explanation but I don’t read everything they write… There is no doubt we have seen enormous scientific and technical progress which has resulted in economic progress, longer life spans, more opportunity etc. But, from where did the idea of progress originate? I would argue that is fundamentally a Christian idea. Historically there is also no doubt that the scientific and technological (industrial) revolutions occurred within a Christian milieu. However, I think there is a stronger argument that the idea of moral progress and social justice, especially when it comes to concepts like universal human rights, is also, philosophically and historically, a distinctly Christian idea. Even some atheist thinkers agree with me here. For example, philosopher Jürgen Habermas writes:
“Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.” (Jürgen Habermas – “Time of Transitions”, Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).
http://habermas-rawls.blogspot.com/2009/06/misquote-about-habermas-and.html The idea of universal human rights requires some kind of transcendent standard. But how do we explain how rights and morals can be grounded by a purposeless natural process. By definition any kind of Darwinian or naturalistic evolution is-- indeed must be-- purposeless. But universal human rights and objective moral values cannot be explained without purpose. Again the key question we’ve asked here at UD over and over again is: how could a purposeless process give rise to purpose? But, not just progress but purpose, meaning and value-- everything that makes us human!john_a_designer
October 6, 2019
October
10
Oct
6
06
2019
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
F/N: As a reminder, Locke's alternative (citing Canon Hooker):
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
Remember, this is the context of the famous 2nd para, US DoI, 1776. Let me cite this, too, by way of reminder:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
KFkairosfocus
October 5, 2019
October
10
Oct
5
05
2019
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
JAD, the radical subjectivist or relativist is incoherent, undermining reason itself; which is inescapably morally governed. After that, all else in his or her scheme is groundless. That is why in my discussion on worldviews I start from the Royce proposition, E = error exists, showing it undeniably true. Simply put, assert ~ E, i.e. it is error to assert E. Oops, E is undeniably, certainly, objectively, self-evidently true. And knowable as such. Relativist and subjectivist schemes that try to undermine or dismiss such, are falsified as a bloc. We may indeed err but knowable, warrantable truth also exists, accurately describing reality. So, we see here part of the road back from the brink. KFkairosfocus
October 5, 2019
October
10
Oct
5
05
2019
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
EG, did you notice, that our context above is logic of being rather than any particular tradition? That should be a first clue as to where your thought errs. That you imagine that the small-g gods of paganism come even close to a necessary being root of reality is a second clue; where, to adequately account for morally governed, rational, responsible creatures, such a NB-WR will need to be inherently good and utterly wise as well as having power to be a source and sustainer of worlds. (And yes, echoing OP, this leads to the thought-bridge from logic of being [ontology], world roots and the like to philosophical and systematic theology.) From that point, your knock over the strawman caricature rhetoric is predictable and utterly fallacious. You would be well advised to think again, starting from logic of being and implications of how even our intellectual life is undeniably governed by duties to truth, right reason, sound conscience, prudence, justice etc. In that context you might find it useful to ponder why -- as the repeatedly linked in this thread notes -- we have a framework of law that pivots on our morally governed nature. It would then help you to ponder why it is that the foundational Christian teachings specifically endorse core elements of such thought as sound. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Rom 2: "14 When Gentiles, who do not have the Law [since it was given only to Jews], do [c]instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law. 15 They show that the [d]essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts; and their conscience [their sense of right and wrong, their moral choices] bearing witne.ss and their thoughts alternately accusing or perhaps defending them." Indeed, in Ch 13, we may also see: "8 . . . he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman]. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,” and any other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law." This, in fact, was historically significant through Canon Hooker and Locke, in setting the context for modern liberty and democratic self-government. KF PS: Do I need to explicitly add, regarding the central tainting evil of our time [under false colour of law], that for manifest reasons, the acceptable death-rate for holocaust is zero, not a further million slaughtered globally per WEEK? (Other things follow per the logic of "like unto this . . ." and "how much more . . ." but of course until our compass-sense is fixed and crooked yardsticks are exposed by self-evident plumb lines, we literally cannot think straight.)kairosfocus
October 5, 2019
October
10
Oct
5
05
2019
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
KF
So, recognising the reality of God as world root and as credible is a key first step to reform.
Which sets up the first impassable roadblock in your path to a moral and sustainable society. What God is this world root? Christian, Jewish. Muslim? The Greek Gods, the Norse gods? The Hindu Gods? The Sikh God? The Incan Gods? Or one of the hundreds of deities that have been worshipped. And even if we can narrow it down to one, which variation/sect/cult under the selected God is the right interpretation? Even within Christianity this varies from the acceptance of same sex marriage, limited abortion, divorce and access to birth control, to others where there is a complete prohibition of all of these. To simply say that the only way is to live a life according to God’s teachings is a non-started as there is no agreement as to what that means.Ed George
October 5, 2019
October
10
Oct
5
05
2019
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
How do we know a moral relativist or subjectivist is being honest when he (or she) is the one who sets the standards of honesty? It’s one thing if he sets standard for himself. It’s quite another when he tries to impose his personal standards on everyone else. In other words, if he makes the claim he is being honest in an interpersonal way he can only do so by using a standard beside his own personal standard but that undermines his moral subjectivist claims (proving that it is completely irrational.) This is why I try to avoid getting involved in discussions with moral subjectivists. It would be a total waste of time. Again as I have said before, we could not have a functioning society without an interpersonal standard of truth and honest. The courts, criminal justice, government, business and commerce etc. all depend on it.john_a_designer
October 5, 2019
October
10
Oct
5
05
2019
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
JAD, sobering, again -- and precisely what Plato warned against in The Laws, Bk X. Worse, in the frequently linked in this thread, I show that our intellectual faculties are morally governed, so the rot automatically extends to reasoning. If our duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, justice etc collapse into subjective emotions and delusions of objectivity, then reason itself is utterly discredited, is reduced to absurdity. But of course, the objectors try to suggest this is a mere fallacious appeal to dislike of consequences and/or a slippery slope. That is how they can live amidst the manifest, appalling consequences of absurdity emerging on the ground and try to argue that things are progressing nicely. The bottom-line remains: dismiss the objectivity of moral government and you undermine rationality itself as -- since we are free creatures [a necessity of being rational!] -- rationality is itself inescapably morally governed. This then extends to law in community, that is how we get to lawlessness, nihilism and blatant party-spirited corruption under false colour of law. Cicero was right, at core law is highest reason that expresses moral government and we may freely add,it is in defence of the civil peace of justice. KFkairosfocus
October 4, 2019
October
10
Oct
4
04
2019
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
Here is a quote I found a couple of years ago that is worth repeating again here. Many atheists are forced to concede that at best, according to their worldview, morals are just subjective preferences. For example,
Bertrand Russell said… “I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it.” In Russell’s atheistic world all values are subjective and the only thing that could possibly be wrong with wanton cruelty (or pedophilia, for that matter) is that he doesn’t like it. Ruse understands the dilemma quite well. A subjective system of morality is nothing more than a rickety shack with no foundation; it will collapse in the first good wind: “But it [morality] is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down…very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer. How then do we escape this seemingly intractable problem? Ruse offers us his solution: So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective… Because that is what morality demands of us. It is bigger than the both of us. It is laid upon us and we must accept it, just like we must accept that 2+2=4. [emphasis added]
https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/01/03/atheism-and-pedophilia-part-ii-the-incoherent-moral-philosophy-of-michael-ruse/ So it’s like the placebo effect. But how effective is a placebo if everyone knows it’s a placebo?john_a_designer
October 4, 2019
October
10
Oct
4
04
2019
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
JAD, some serious considerations. KF PS: This is especially pivotal:
materialistic atheists (like Ruse, Dawkins, Dennett, Provine…Rosenberg [and Sean Carroll] etc.) have no basis for either epistemological or moral truth. There is no capital-T Truth according to them (I can provide their quotes if you wish.) But how can you trust someone who doesn’t believe there is such a thing as moral truth? Morality is useless unless there is some kind of real and binding interpersonal moral obligations. Obligations are not subjective personal preferences. For example, we are obligated to tell the truth whether it advances our self-interest or not. Obligations also demand that there is some kind of interpersonal moral standard which more than one person MUST admit is the right, correct and true standard. The materialist atheist has no reason to accept such a standard. So what reason would anyone have to believe that he (or she) is able to treat other honestly and fairly? How. for example, can you have an honest and fair discussion on-line about morality if you don’t feel you have a personal obligation to be truthful? I don’t see how you can or ever could.
Now, i/l/o Plato in The Laws Bk X, tie it to:
we can look at Mr Carroll’s remarks as reflective of a common feeling among the so-called progressivist elites. It drips with contempt towards the benighted who imagine they can know what “WE” know does not exist — which, as God is a serious candidate necessary being — implies that they think God is impossible of being. A serious NB candidate will either be impossible as a square circle is impossible or else it will be actual, as part of framework for any world to be. And that burden of warrant has never been met.* Carroll’s assertion reflects ignorance of philosophy, which of course such often despise once they swallow scientism, and that ignorance comes back like a boomerang. It is time to call the bluff. KF * PS: Yes, I imply that we have every good reason to see God as credibly possible of being, and therefore actual by force of serious candidacy to be a necessary being. Your credible alternative candidate for a world-source and world framing root of being capable of soundly grounding morally governed, rational, responsible, significantly free creatures is ______ and your warrant for said is _________ . Where, your grounds for impossibility of God are ____ or else your grounds that he is not a serious candidate NB are _______ .
kairosfocus
October 4, 2019
October
10
Oct
4
04
2019
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
ET, God's words start with the known duties of responsible reason: to truth, right reason, sound conscience, prudence, justice etc. This then extends to civil society through the civil peace of justice. And too many today are unaware that gospel ethics endorses core natural law insights, e.g. Rom 2: "14 When Gentiles, who do not have the Law [since it was given only to Jews], do [c]instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law. 15 They show that the [d]essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts; and their conscience [their sense of right and wrong, their moral choices] bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or perhaps defending them." KFkairosfocus
October 4, 2019
October
10
Oct
4
04
2019
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Hazel, If I had not taken time to repeatedly link an extended discussion that sits in a context that starts with worldview roots then argues onward step by step up to civilisation transformation -- starting with the OP itself, I would take your objection and that of EG above more seriously. As it is, the two of you have simply managed to set up and knock over strawman caricatures yet again. Meanwhile, we can duly note that -- i/l/o years of objections along the lines of how dare you cite Lewontin et al -- that the substantial issue set up in the caption of the OP and answered through that OP is of course dodged yet again. Telling. Anyway, out of concern for those caught up in ever so much of modern agit prop, media amplification, lawfare and the like, I will speak to certain issues i/l/o the already linked and the set of informational graphics in the F/N I just added to the OP. Observe, the first chart, showing how business as usual (entrenched through the balance of power) can become ruinous, stubbornly ruinous in the teeth of warning signs. Thus we see the possibility of being caught up in an ideological Plato's Cave world (and/or a suicidally mutinous ship of state world], creating the Overton Window challenge. Namely, how to move to a sounder worldview. Where, WORLDVIEW + ASSOCIATED CULTURAL AGENDA = IDEOLOGY IDEOLOGY + POWER = REGIME (AND ITS BUSINESS AS USUAL TREND LINE) So, recognising the reality of God as world root and as credible is a key first step to reform. Where, kindly, note, such does not so much turn on a design inference but instead starts from recognising logic of being, world roots and the implications of our being morally governed, responsible, rational, significantly free creatures. That changes the context in which we can look at civilisation structure i/l/o the helpful seven mountains of influence model. This equips us to be open to a sounder path without having to crash over a cliff, breaking our civilisation. The path currently being stoutly resisted, in the USA already manifesting breakdown of its Constitutional order and coming out as low kinetic 4th generation civil war. Having lived through an unacknowledged, ruinous civil war in 1979 - 80, I note that until major shooting starts, civil wars are unacknowledged these days. (For that matter, major fighting began in 1775, the DoI and beyond was over a year later. Similarly, things were spinning out of control across the 1850's in the USA, too.) Now, observe the most complex chart, a political spectrum framework, with three scales: leadership, state power, lawfulness. Up to roughly the 1680's or so, we did not have a literate public with sufficient access to news and thought/analysis to form a public with significant policy opinion, government was a matter of elites and one hoped for a reasonably balanced oligarchy that took a body of just law seriously. But the invention of metal movable type printing for alphabetic scripts, c 1440 - 50, then rise of newspapers and cheap handbills (& tracts etc), spreading of literacy [note here], presence of the Bible in the vernacular and aspects of the Reformation opened up new space. Thus the rise of modern Constitutional Democracy and linked concepts of rights, freedom and more. Onward, we see libertarianism and its hope for minimal government. Anarchy or the State of Nature have always been there as a repeller pole. That is what drove people to forfeit freedom to gain protective order. But, rights, justice, duty, law are all tied to moral government and built in laws of our nature starting with known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, justice etc. What is being undermined -- from Plato in The Laws Bk X, yet again -- through the rise of evolutionary materialistic scientism and linked radical secularism, relativism, subjectivism, amorality and nihilism. Down that road lies disorder and a snap-back into the vortex of tyranny. The cliff. So, how do we find a sounder solution? Through recognising that we are morally governed by our nature and what that points to. So, we have a framework that law pivots on justice, not power and propaganda. With the ongoing holocaust and accelerating chaos as exhibits A and B. In that context, responsible reformation starts by restoring soundness. This requires an approach that repudiates the implicit nihilism of legal positivism and restores soundness. For example, our living posterity in the womb have a clear right to life. On this, what has happened is so bad that we need a global truth and reconciliation commission. After this, we need to restore from lawlessness in legislatures, the executive and the judiciary. To do so, principles of justice and accountability of law before justice will have to be restored. Things like, justice duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Like, to justly claim a right, one must show oneself manifestly in the right, i/l/o the principles of our morally governed nature. And such like. That will call for media reform too. In the USA, it is clear that defamation protections have been dangerously undermined (unsurprisingly, the 1960's are implicated here too). This has drastically undermined the right to innocent reputation, leading to misgovernment by accusation and piling on. Much more is indicated, such as restoration of a sustainable scale of government. The Laffer-Rahm-Armey analysis of Government, growth and GDP is sobering. It is likely that the long term growth and stability macimising point may be 15 - 25% of GDP. A number that has been so far exceeded in many cases as to be ludicrous. And more. But first, our thinking has to be set straight starting from world roots. KFkairosfocus
October 4, 2019
October
10
Oct
4
04
2019
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply