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).”
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.
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:
Also, on law:
Noting Augustine and Aquinas:
And Aquinas on law in general:
Sean Carroll: “Nowadays, when a more scientific worldview has triumphed and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist . . . ” — really?
I have never, before, seen a Zen koan composed for the purpose of high humour. I think Sean has changed sides, parodying his erstwhile colleagues. How they will react, I dread to think ! Welcome aboard, Sean !
Posted the below commentary in another discussion but, after reading this quoted text “When A More Scientific Worldview Has Triumphed” here, I just realized that the same comment may fit well within this topic too:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sabine-hossenfelder-explains-the-problem-with-the-many-worlds-hypothesis/#comment-684499
Um, no. You TERRIBLY weaken the argument in favor of God by insisting that the Jehovah of the Bible IS God, and that believing in God REQUIRES the belief in the Bible.
Christianity was created by the guys who flunked out of the prep class for The Mystery Religion. There is absolutely ZERO historical evidence for any noteworthy person using the name “Jesus of Nazareth” in what is now called “the 1st Century” by back construction.
The existence of God NEVER required belief in the sloppiness that became The New Testament. The Old Testament is a pack of lies. Egyptians NEVER called their kings “pharaohs”, and there is absolutely no mention of any “Hebrew” people coming into Egypt and then being expelled. Also, Ancient Egypt NEVER had slaves. Etc., etc., etc.
The people who came to be called “Hebrews”, etc., were/are in fact a VERY minor group of Arabs who lived in the area generally north of what is now Yemen. Etc., etc., etc.
I could name books to read, but clearly “believers” don’t want to be upset by mere facts.
Vmahuna your supposed scholarship of this issue has been shown to be atrocious numerous times:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/swedish-mathematician-explains-why-he-sees-design-in-nature-and-became-a-christian/#comment-675205
and:
VM, I have to be moving for the day, but it is blatantly obvious that theism and the Judaeo-Christian, theistic, scriptural tradition are not identical, theism is wider. However, there is a very specific warrant for the Christian faith that you may find it advisable to address. It is mentioned and linked in the above. From Ac 17, AD 50, it is presented as the offer of proof to all men: Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen on the 3rd day “according to scripture.” KF
You foolish, foolish person, Vmahuna ! Sure, ‘Take up your cross and follow me’, is a great sales pitch. Certainly, attractive enough on which to found an empire, called Christendom, which was to make its adherents, voluntary and involuntary, more technologically advanced by an order of magnitude than the rest of the world. And the cream of the joke is that the congenital, worldly intelligence of the Chinese and the Indians generally tends to be more acute, imo, than that of Europeans. I believe in India you have the weird situation in which you have an often brilliant, highly-educated ruling class and many poor people having to defecate in the street, although I believe here s a progamme for building public conveniences. All the saddder in that Vedanta* was such a spiritual version of Hndusim – as well as unbelievably ancient. Religion matters !
As for your comments on Christ, they are beoynd laughable. He is the only God whose origin is outsideof space and time. The rest are earthbound demi-gods, and not omnisicient and omnipotent. So much for your dismissal of him. Here is what Einstein had to say about Jesus, when he was asked whether he accepted the historical Jesus (his existence historically documented in any case):
‘“- To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”
“– As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”
“– Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?”
“– Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”
– “You accept the historical Jesus?”
‘”Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” (Einstein, as cited in Viereck 1929;’
If you look at the YouTube video-clips on the Shroud of Turin, the Sudarium of Oviedo, and the video of Saint Padre Pio, below, and then tell us it’s all hokum, we shall know that you are beyond help – which does sound like the most likely outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbgXRODiT04
*Vedanta is a philosophy taught by the Vedas, the most ancient scriptures of India. Its basic teaching is that our real nature is divine. God, the underlying reality, exists in every being. Religion is therefore a search for self-knowledge, a search for the God within. – from Wikipedia.
Does Sean know assertion is not argument. How does he deal with the evidence above for Gods existence, simply deny it is really evidence?
Ah, Bill, it seems “argument” by assertion, ideological imposition, question-begging a prioris, accusation and the like are taking over. A sad sign indeed for our evidently declining civilisation. We need to go back to fundamentals of worldviews analysis, including the pivotal principles of right reason. KF
How sad. Carroll is as intellectually challenged as the trolls who keep showing up here at UD. Who knows he may be one of the many sock puppets who keeps popping up on this site.
vmahuna
I guess your knowledge of Egypt trumps every expert. What was the title given to the king during the New Kingdom? That would be pharaoh.
https://www.ancient.eu/pharaoh/
As for slavery, everyone else must be wrong as well:
Slaves in Egypt were either criminals, those who could not pay their debts, or captives from foreign military campaigns. These people were considered to have forfeited their freedoms either by their individual choices or by military conquest and so were forced to endure a quality of existence far below that of free Egyptians.
https://www.ancient.eu/article/933/daily-life-in-ancient-egypt/
BR, yes, and there are many other flaws there. Sad, really, but the Dan Brown- Jesus Seminar- History Channel fashion is moving along. On historicity of Jesus of Nazareth [Jesus being anglicised from Gk where orig Heb more directly came to us as Joshua also] cf here on as was originally linked in the OP and as has been put to VM for him to address. No one has claimed that theism is synonymous to Christian faith, but instead the article replied to a challenge to that faith which implied educational and/or financial fraud by church leaders; in the context of which the issues of philosophical warrant for God and the bridge from idea of God to Christian Systematic Theology and its pivot on the gospel were central. The notion that the Christian Faith and before it Judaism were founded on Pagan myths fails the giggle test, but is common in a world of fringe thought. Far from being sloppy as thought, the NT is deservedly a foundational classic in its own right, just as an anthology of thought. The Sermon on the Mount and the wider story of Jesus and his thought, Luke’s two-volume masterful history, the writings of Paul as one of the top dozen minds shaping our civilisation, alone, would secure that. The Torah and Tanakh (differently arranged in our OT) are not so easily dismissed as lies. There may be a lot of revisionism but the story of a refugee semitic family/small tribe of essentially syrian extraction becoming at first welcome refugees then reduced to slavery and leading a successful revolt and founding their own state fits the temper of the times, with enough support to be taken seriously. There is an interesting exploration on gem mining operations and origin of alphabet, tied to this. You have aptly answered on Pharaoh [name of the house used eventually for the king] and on enslavement — which comes in many forms. No one has seriously doubted that Jews and Arabian Arabs mutually recognise one another as cousins. To this day, resemblance in language alone is instructive. Finally, one may claim to be master of the facts, sneering at mere believers, while failing to understand that facts [real and imagined], faith and reason are inextricably intertwined in the roots of our world views. And again that was linked in the OP. That said, the main focus remains, that Mr Carroll was ill informed in his captioned remark. It will be interesting to hear what our atheistical objectors now have to say about it and similar remarks by Lewontin, US NSTA and NAS, Mahner, Alex Rosenberg and others. KF
It seems to me that Sean Carroll’s argument is logically flawed because it is impossible to prove something doesn’t exist in the universe. So his argument has to read “everyone believes that God doesn’t exist” in order to be a valid argument. And that statement is patently wrong. Surely he is perceptive enough to recognize some people believe God exists.
AW, it is an implication of evolutionary materialistic scientism. Big-S Science in thralldom to atheism dressed up in a lab coat monopolises knowledge and so there is no room for the dreaded “divine foot” in the door of what is called knowledge. But the notion that such ideologically captive “science” is “the only begetter of truth [and so, knowledge]” is an epistemological — thus philosophical, claim. Scientism is self-referentially incoherent. It falsifies itself. Question begging founded on self-refuting arguments. Fail. KF
PS: ironically, millions do not merely believe that there is a God but have sufficient of transformational encounter that we have warrant to report that we know God personally. As the OP notes, if instead so many were to be deeply delusional on this; it would bring the credibility of the human mind into serious question. Of course, that is exactly where evolutionary materialism ends up: undermining rationality itself.
Here is part of an argument I have used at UD before.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-gets-mail-from-jerry-coyne/#comment-684472
Something which is transcendent (even if it’s in a trivial sense) is empirically non-detectable. If it’s not empirically detectable it is not “scientific,” therefore, it cannot claimed to be the basis of a “scientific worldview.” The only thing that a scientist like Sean Carroll can claim is that the universe had a beginning and scientifically we have no idea how it began. However, that doesn’t rule out other logically valid possibilities. There is nothing logically impossible about an eternally existing transcendent Creator.
Sean Carroll is wrong again. There is something else that does make sense. The term “Church”, according to the Bible refers to all those who do know who/what God “really” is — by definition. The part about people becoming “church” members and tithing is indeed a misrepresentation of what THE Church is, and describes the perception of what a church is according to those outside The Church. Like the blind man who doesn’t have a clue what the color Blue is. (not every one in a church is in The Church, and there is no way of knowing for sure who is and who isn’t, so the wheat and the tares coexist for a while, as was planned — by the God who IS and refers to Himself as “I AM”)
Could somebody help me.
I haven’t been able to get an answer to this question about Dr Carroll:
In his biography it is stated that Dr. Carroll “posits that the Big Bang is not a unique occurrence as a result of all of the matter and energy in the universe originating in a singularity at the beginning of time, but rather one of many cosmic inflation events resulting from quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy in a cold de Sitter space. He claims that the universe is infinitely old but never reaches thermodynamic equilibrium as entropy increases continuously without limit due to the decreasing matter and energy density attributable to recurrent cosmic inflation. He asserts that the universe is “statistically time-symmetric,” insofar as it contains equal progressions of time “both forward and backward”.
This obviously contradicts the recent determination of the cosmological constant. which shows that the universe is expending at an ever accelerating rate. This means that time does NOT “contain equal progressions of time “both forward and backward”, but only forward. Thus leading to the “heat death first posited by Lord Kelvin in 1852.
Is Dr Carroll merely “positing” some of the multiverse stuff that Dr Hossenfelder laughs at, or has he got something that a reasonable person could take seriously?
TLH, one of the highly speculative models of our world is a limitless in the past underlying sub universe in which sub-cosmi like ours pop up and expand as fluctuations; there have been discussions here at UD. We only observe our cosmos so all of this is philosophy dressed up in Mathematics with a dusting of physics. My own basic problem is with any quasi-physical model that posits a causal-temporal, actually limitless, infinite, past. Whether the infinity is explicitly acknowledged or is left implicit (and we have had ding-dong exchanges here on it) the transfinite cannot be traversed in finite stage causally successive steps. My in a nutshell is we need to think in terms of the hyperreals (involving hyperintegers such that for some H of magnitude |H| greater than any |z| for any z in the integers, 1/H = h where h is closer to 0 than any 1/z) and see a negative H, so H+1, H+2 etc will never traverse in steps to some k finitely removed in 1-scale steps from 0. Bonus, h is an infinitesimal, which gives a solid gateway to calculus. And yes, it is more useful to think on hyper reals than reals, that’s what your old high school handwaving by Math teachers was pointing to. So, the idea of a limitless actual quasi physical past is an absurdity. We can have a potentially infinite future that keeps on going without limit but not an actually completed transfinite past. Yes, if a world now is, it implies a necessary being world root that is causally independent and without beginning. Whatever candidates you care to put up, a transfinite past causal-physical succession is not credible as a candidate. But that is where a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism now seems to be driving its proponents. KF
AW, that’s a certain Mr Gordon Robinson of Jamaica’s Gleaner, not SC. Mind you, to say we all KNOW there is no God implies one cannot know God. Mr Carroll has not really thought through the implications of what he has asserted. KF
‘“argument” by assertion;…. another hilariously-pungent definition, KF ! I can think of two current, national leaders whose egregious narcissism seems to have prompted them to adopt that very ‘argument by assertion’, as their modus operandi.
Axel, our big problem is actually the ideological captivity of the media, the academy and education in a context of a global elite class that is riddled with perversities and corrupt behaviours [Epstein being an example of the problem]. It is not for nothing that we are warned against stumbling the little ones. KF
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES, you may find these critiques of Carroll useful
This also may be of interest for you:
As to “many cosmic inflation events resulting from quantum fluctuations”,, The initial purpose of cosmological inflation was to try to explain why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous.
Yet, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, states that the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all,,, is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true.
“The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything.
And as the old saying goes, a scientific theory that predicts everything predicts nothing at all.
Max Tegmark himself, an atheist like Carroll, admitted that inflation sabotages our ability to make useful predictions. In fact, he stated that because of inflation “we physicists are no longer able to predict anything at all!”
Here are a few more criticisms of Inflation theory:
Moreover, there are ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that disconfirm the simplest inflation models,
Moreover, what is curious about some of these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR (that cannot be explained by the ‘simple’ inflation model of materialists), is that these ‘anomalies’ in the Cosmic Background Radiation also strangely line up with the earth and solar system.
At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains all of these ‘anomalies’ that line up with earth and solar system in an easy to understand manner.
In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, (from the large scale structures in the universe, to the earth and solar system themselves), reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke (and/or some random quantum fluctuation) as atheists had presupposed.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/our-solar-system-is-a-lot-rarer-than-it-was-a-quarter-century-ago/#comment-669546
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ever-cycling-universe-cycles-back-to-town/#comment-682338
@ Your #21, KF :
‘…. their (the little ones’) angels look on the face of God at all times.’ It’s not difficult to believe, is it ? Like little jewels, humming-birds- except, somehow, radiant. And, of course, the only one’s with perfect intellectual integrity : they want to know the truth about everything they can ‘get a handle on’. Period. The world and its Epsteins hasn’t yet darkened their vision. Apparently, the very high-status ring of paedophiles is extremely large – many thousands strong. But I believe it would always have been so – though today’s pornography cannot have improved matters. Mammon-worship, plus Moloch worship, seem to have destroyed the US.
Yes, of course, the media have given so much exra power to the rulers of tjis world, if we did not have Christ, now in our faith and forever, it would all be very depressing. Isn’t history largely a chronicle of the ministrations of psychopaths (with a sprinkling of sociopaths and misguided souls, right up to the present day)?
Axel,
We do forget the angels. What a lovely image.
Sunday, I sat next to a little Haitian boy and just behind another. Mommy for no 1 was helping to lead the service. I yet remember her wedding, as they had to do the vows in French and English. Bravely, she answered in English, I do, I will. And now a lovely little boy was next to me, with his God Mother on the other side. In front, the other little boy — both were sleeping — was next to his mom, another lovely Haitian lady. I could see how she positively glowed.
If moms aren’t angels they should be.
And what struck me was how I was watching living jewels, precious. And, there is scripture that talks of us as living stones built as a growing Temple, founded on and aligned with our Cornerstone.
One of the horrors of our age is our violation of the precious, the innocent. Our transmutation of the beautiful and holy into the ugly, the twisted, the frustrated from rightful end, the evil, the downright demonic.
And what happened with and around Mr Epstein is as solid a proof as can be that there is something rotten in the heart of our civilisation.
It were better that a millstone . . .
KF
Yes, KF, it’s all front and centre, now, isn’t it. Can’t watch film on the box now, without finding yourself watching a couple going at it like knives.
But how strange that you should remark : ‘If moms aren’t angels they should be’, as I was only thinking this morning’, in relation to this thread, I wonder if mothers realise how incredibly lovingly, to what a privileged height, God must have created them, to give birth to a tiny, new human bieng and nurture it – to do so, as best they may, preparing them to cope with the world and its wickedness and yet remain ‘other Christs’, for a world in need of their love and wisdom. And to an extent, of course, that goes for fathers : that it is difficult to imagine a more epic and responsible vocation than to bring up a family ; which reminds me of the extraordinarlily perceptive saying of C S Lewis: ‘The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only – and that is to support the ultimate career.”
However, if I am correct in my ‘suspicion’ that women are closer to God the Father in his eternal essence, it should be no surprise that they seem to be literally (in terms of the actual nature of angels as pure spirits) more angelic than us – for better or worse, moreover ! Is there not a greater immediacy, as well as intransigence about their reactions : in their gossip, at least, the first to judge, the first to condemn and the first to transgress ! Also, their general intuitiveness and psychic faculty would suggest a closer proximity to the world of the spirit. So, our testosterone seems to act as something of a damper on those finer, more angelic qualities. Of course, they are all broad generalisations, and no guarantee, in any case, that their angelic nature cannot fall, like that of Lucifer and his hordes angel-demons.
However, it is worth noting, I believe, that true strength, spiritual strength, is pre-eminently passive, although of course, the grace of courage must surely also play a major role. Weird to read that Christ’s moment of greatest glory on earth was that of his absolute degradation and death on Golgotha – Paul’s evocation of it as a triumphal procession in which he led the vanquished demons as his captives.
Actually, I am strongly inclined to believe – well, there seem to be indications – that women are closer to God the Father in his eternal essence. They certainly seem to be top-weights in life’s patriarchal handicap, don’t they. I’m reminded of film-star, ballroom dancer of the forties and fifties, Ginger Roger’s ‘bon mot’, to the effect that she had to do everything Fred Astaire did… only backwards.
Did you ever see the catechesis on the angels by John-Paul II I posted on here a whole back, KF ? I’ll append it anyway, as others would probably find it as fascinating as I did. Here it is:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechesis-on-the-angels-7960
‘From the womb, before the Day-Star have I begotten you.’
– the mysterious ‘uterus eternum’, referred to in Psalm 109 (110)
Interesting who are not here.
KF@25, thank you fore the lovely story of the children and mother.
Sadly, the horrors of Epstein are not new. I don’t believe that it is any worse (or better) than it was at any time in history. It wasn’t that long ago that pedophiles and rapist were enabled by our cultural attitudes of family shame in the case of pedophilia and blame the victim in the case of rape. It wasn’t that many years ago that a husband could not be charged for raping his wife.
EG, I haven’t said this is worse than say Rome in the days of Caligula then Nero; something we must never return to. What I have taken is that Epstein was clearly a trafficking node, actually grooming and “breaking in” some key victims (possibly with one or more confederates, at least one being female) then trafficked onwards including a key case that points to the UK upper classes. The implication is, pervading of the elites of our civilisation with a terrible network, today; one that connects directly to the abortion holocaust, ongoing perversion of law and usurpation by judges of unilateral Constitution over-ruling power, evident corruption of legislatures and media houses that now routinely resort to tactics of media-amplified reputation lynching by groundless or ill-founded accusation and and worse — the corrupting influence of blood guilt is patent. In answer, I put on the table the principle that there is a manifest, built-in law that governs us, starting from our intellects and extending to civil society and government; a law of our morally governed nature which we did not create nor can we change. One, that also points, like a compass-needle, to the roots of reality and the implication that the source of worlds, given such morally governed creatures, must be a necessary [independent] being that is both inherently good and utterly wise, with capability to cause and sustain a world. However, while I have responded to your assertions to provide a degree of balance, that is not what this thread is about; the Carroll assertion is on the table with all that it implies, when it has to give an account before the bar of comparative difficulties. KF
KF
My point is that I don’t think it is any worse than it was in the 19th or 20th centuries. The tools used are certainly different (internet, etc. ), but I see no evidence that the relative numbers and severity of these crimes has changed over the last couple centuries.
EG, trends obviously picked up across the 1960’s. By the 1970’s we had destabilisation of economic trends too. More importantly, we saw in the 70’s the rising tide of the central moral cancer of our civilisation, which you and others refuse to acknowledge: the ongoing abortion holocaust of at least 800+ millions in 40+ years and mounting at another million per week. The associated blood guilt taints and warps everything else, now looking like it is ready to go critical. Associated, we saw the undermining of the natural law foundation for justice as criterion for law and government, opening the door for the rising tide of legal nihilism, further tied to radical secularist humanism and atheism as a mass phenomenon, further gutting foundations of moral law and restraint. No wonder, all sorts of manifest perversities and pathologies are demanding to become the driving force of law and government. It is in this context that 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- Have you noticed that Ed’s “arguments” are the exact same as Brian’s?
Horses from the same stables.
See https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing-being-logic-first-principles-24/ and https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/bbc-swings-and-misses-why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing-pt-2-being-logic-and-first-principles-24b/
Same horse, only the mane has changed. 😀
If my memory is serving me correctly Ed George, Brother Brian and Hazel all showed up here at UD about the same time. When was that? Maybe Ed, if he is really on the up and up, can tell us. Can anyone else remember?
Riddle me this, riddle me that, guess me this riddle and p’rhaps not: If you clone a horse, what is the relationship between the two horses?
Folks, a better focus. If ever there were utter nothing, such would forever obtain. If a world is, something always was, causally adequate to account for it. Including, rational, free, responsible, morally governed creatures. This is an independent, necessary being world root of moral character and adequate in knowledge and power to be source and sustainer of a world. In this context, the better suggestion is that God is a serious candidate to be that world root, and that there is no good reason to hold him impossible of being. That insight dramatically shifts the credibility of the view that God is. KF
I’ve been here for almost a year, off and on, but mostly off now, FWIW. I am sure it is easy to see that I am me and not one of those other two people.
KF
I think you might be falsely extrapolating an increase in reporting to an increase in actual incidents. For example, pedophilia is most frequently perpetrated by a family member or a person in some level of authority (eg teacher, scout leader, priest, etc). Before the 60s and 70s, when these crimes were found out, the police were almost never called. The family, or church, or scouting, would make efforts to cover it up. If you have any real evidence that pedophilia, or the manipulation and pressuring of young women into having sex is actually increasing, I would love to see it.
Weinstein just did what movie producers have been doing since the advent of talkies. It is heard about more today because women in society have been fighting for, and getting, more power, and society has started to listen.
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.
Good points, Ed.
EG, have you forgotten the fundamental transformations or even “revolutions” that happened as the dominant baby boom generation came of age? This was the time when the so-called sexual/free love revolution happened, and things that went with it. It was when the push that culminated in the abortion holocaust happened. It was when the crimes of Stalin et al were forgotten (and those of Mao were studiously ignored). It was when the geostrategic tide of WW3 — the so called cold war — shifted to the Communists, leading in the next decade to a massive surge in the global S that looked un-stoppable until John Paul II, Blonie Fields, Thatcher and Reagan came together in a critical mass as we went into the 80’s. It was the point when existentialism was king. It was the point where the elites of our civilisation began the radical secularist atheistically driven push, taking advantage of a new, powerful mass broadcast medium, television . . . especially colour television with several dominant channels; the point when post-literacy entered. They rode piggyback on unrest over Vietnam to try to discredit the traditional order. And much more. It was the obvious kairos, and we can now see that at that juncture our civilisation failed. Today, we reap the consequences. We were not born yesterday — I have to flag the obvious attempt to distract us at that level: history, cultural agendas and worldviews, geostrategics, major spiritual trends and turning points. Likewise, the distractor from the cat out the bag admission by Carroll and the answer that pivots on logic of being, roots of reality and the crucial fact that reality includes morally governed creatures. KF
Hazel
Thank you. Where KF sees a decline in civilization I see a civilization fighting to better itself. Obviously there are going to be some bumps along the way as we learn how to deal with new technology or the granting of new rights. But if you don’t try, you don’t improve.
KF’s idealized civilization never existed, and never will. The terrible sixties that KF speaks of was also the birth of real equality for women, of the civil rights movement, of not blindly accepting what the government, or the priest, was saying. I would much rather live in today’s society, in spite of its many problems, than return to one where men could legally rape their wives, where women who were raped were “asking for it”, where homosexuals were persecuted and often prosecuted, where there were institutional and family cover ups of pedophilia, where women were often pressured into having sex in order to get or keep a job.
EG, a strawman is a case of a red herring. I have never spoken to a golden age, but I have spoken to a point where our civilisation failed. Zooming back a little, the British Empire similarly failed in the thirty one years from 1914 to 1945. Was that Empire ideal? No. But did its failure carry sobering consequences, yes. Again, across the 60’s our civilisation failed, and the abortion holocaust of 800+ millions and mounting at another million per week is the strongest single proof of it. So is the refusal to face it and acknowledge that A is A. That also resets your credibility to judge of such issues to nil. A genuine litmus test, failed. Likewise, it is almost amusing to see the studious avoidance of the pivotal issue put on the table through the title, much less the OP. Fail, again. KF
Let us refresh our memories, from the title: >>Sean Carroll: “Nowadays, when a more scientific worldview has triumphed and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist . . . ” — really?>> This is a serious issue of civilisational import. In the OP, I answered Carroll. Let us take it for granted that UD is always under hostile, obsessive scrutiny, so the sort of rhetoric of distraction above speaks volumes.
KF
That is true, but you clearly believe that civilization before the 60s was better than it is now. It is this assertion that I disagree with. We live longer, infant mortality is lower, there is no state or western country where inter-racial marriages are illegal, women can no longer be legally prevented from jobs, hitting and raping your wife is now illegal, you can no longer be jailed for having sex with someone of the same sex, teens who get pregnant are no longer required to leave their schools, women now have access to birth control, you can no longer be jailed for blasphemy, blacks can now eat in any restaurant and don’t have to sit at the back of the bus. The same cannot be said for any time before the 60s.
EG,
your distractions and strawman tactics continue, proof positive that you have no cogent answer to the central issue on the table as summed up by Sean Carroll, ideological imposition of atheism dressed up in a lab coat and claiming to be knowledge: “Nowadays, when a more scientific worldview has triumphed and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist . . . ” — really?
As for your strawman, maybe it has not registered that by refusing to acknowledge and address the central evil of our time, that across the 1960’s our civilisation was moved to the point that in the 1970’s it undertook the worst — and ongoing — holocaust in history, 800+ million (with another million victims per week) you make yourself into a poster-child of the problem of absurd moral blindness and rampant evil demonstrating that our civilisation has failed, decisively failed. There is a right term for this, echoing the indictment of Germany by the White Rose martyrs: enabling of holocaust.
You therefore show that you have no credibility to soundly address any matter like this.
At this point, the only thing that can work is a profound reformation, but that is precisely what every muscle and sinew of the radical secularists is straining to block. The likely consequences are sobering, starting with the leading nation in the civilisation, the USA.
Which, is already in low kinetic, 4th generation civil war with emphasis on street theatre, media amplified agit prop [that makes darkness seem light and light darkness] and linked lawfare that is currently wrecking principles of sound government and those of the civil peace of justice (such as protection of the innocent, starting with life but extending to freedom of conscience, expression and the right to innocent reputation etc, including the matter of bankrupting process as a way of crushing the targetted, whose reputations have been trashed . . . and including media amplified 4 am Cheka- style SWAT team arrests etc . . . ); leading to fatal disaffection.
Much of that, pivoting on sustaining the holocaust of our living posterity in the womb; where mass blood guilt like this is infinitely worse than the shadow of even racism — a point that is routinely suppressed. For shame.
Where will we go to cleanse ourselves from the rivers of innocent blood we have shed through the abortion holocaust?
A holocaust in material part enabled through the amorality and implicit nihilism of evolutionary materialism, scientism and the implication of radical relativisation of truth, knowledge, law, justice, doing the right.
So, the willful blindness we see is utterly, utterly telling.
KF
PS: And it is not as though we were not warned. Again, here is Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 2350+ years ago:
F/N: As for the rhetorical and agit prop antics we see being mindlessly echoed and amplified all across our civilisation [with the USA in the shameful and utterly foolish lead], Plato also warned against such in his parable of the ship of state. For, Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
Again, the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears. Those who neglect, reject, refuse to learn and heed them doom themselves to pay in the same terrible coin over and over again.
KF
F/N2: if you want it in shorter terms, here is Jesus of Nazareth, speaking to the self-imagined leading lights of his day, c 30 AD:
How willfully blind we are to the patent, glaring warning signs of our times!
And again, the prophet Isaiah, 700+ years before that:
We cannot say we were not warned long since.
KF
KF
But I don’t think I have heard what you think the specifics of this reformation would be. Obviously you would criminalize abortion, not that this would stop abortion. Would you criminalize homosexual acts? Contraceptives? Sex for pleasure? Questioning the Bible? I’m really not sure what you want to see happen.
EG, your distractions are over, you have demonstrated that you have no credibility as you cannot cease from enabling holocaust. Further, you have yet to show that you have an adequate worldview basis for moral government and sound law (starting with, moral government of reasoning through the built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free minds). [The just linked also outlines the worldview, policy framework and culture rescue context of the needed reformation — something I have put on the table for years so your projections of imagined Christofascist tyranny and “right wing” theocracy have no merit to the point of being snidely defamatory by way of setting up a strawman target. Shame on you!] It is clearly established that the 1960’s mark a break in our civilisation, the point where it failed and can only recover through profound reformation that resolves our guilt of the river of innocent blood of 800+ million unborn children, marking the worst holocaust in history — a holocaust we are continuing to enable to this very day. That is ended, guilty as charged. Now, the focus returns to that which you have strained every nerve to distract from, once I drew attention a day ago to the telling silence of inveterate objectors. Again, cat out of the bag by Sean Carroll: “Nowadays, when a more scientific worldview has triumphed and everyone knows that God doesn’t exist . . . ” — really? Your answer is ________, and your response to how this abundantly corroborates concerns over Lewontin’s, the US NSTA-NAS, etc endorsement of lab coat clad imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism is: _______ The silence so far speaks, tellingly. KF
PS: Just for record, here is Lewontin’s notorious cat out of the bag moment:
That is the clear, underlying ideological context for Mr Carroll’s foolish, ill-advised knowledge claim. A claim that fails to address the impact of our moral government combined with the logic of being implication of a finitely remote, necessary being root of reality and source of all worlds. As a reminder, I clip 32 above, documenting what you would duck by using red herring tactics that in the end only serve to enable the continuing rivers of innocent blood shed through the abortion holocaust:
Ok, God exists. Now what? What are your practical ideas for reforming civilization. That is the question Ed is asking: why is it a “distraction” to ask it when you spend thousands of words telling us how bad things are?
I retract post 53, as I know it is pointless to ask. Good luck, Ed.
Ed George:
Murder is already criminalized. Obviously people are just stupid and will end up doing whatever they want.
hazel:
Get people to listen to God’s Words, duh.
Is Ed too stupid to ask it?
It is very unfair to us who have been commenting off and on here for 10+ years to have to continuously deal with trolls, drive-bys and sock puppets who have absolutely no obligation to be honest and truthful. But apparently, that is what Seversky believes. He even cites a couple examples from the Bible that he thinks supports that view:
“The midwives deliberately deceived Pharaoh—and God appears to reward them for it.” (Exod. 1:17–21)
“Rahab communicated a falsehood to protect the spies—and is apparently applauded for it.” (Josh. 2:1–7; cf. Heb. 11:31).
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-materialist-fundamentalists-are-like-islamic-fundamentalists/#comment-684699
Barry gives a response @ #2 and #9.
I give a very succinct answer @ #10.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-materialist-fundamentalists-are-like-islamic-fundamentalists/#comment-684758
Of course, Paul goes on to argue in Romans 3 that we are morally fallible. We don’t always do what we know is right. (Which is why we need a written code or laws. I think it was James Madison who said if men were angels they wouldn’t need laws or government.)
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-materialist-fundamentalists-are-like-islamic-fundamentalists/#comment-684864
I succinctly summarize my argument @ #14:
Again, as human beings we are all morally fallible. That’s not an opinion. It’s the self-evident and honest Truth. But apparently Ed and Hazel don’t think so.
I certainly believe that human beings are morally fallible, and have no idea why JAD thinks I don’t.
Why should I, or anyone else, care at all what you believe and think, Hazel?
Why should anyone care what anyone else thinks, JAD?
But anyway, that’s a typical reply by you, so I think a strong case can be made that there is no reason for me to care what you think.
Therefore,
a) we shouldn’t interact with each other, as you obviously have no interest in any possibly constructive discussion, and
b) I should ignore anything you have to say about me.
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.
KF
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.” KF
JAD, some serious considerations. KF
PS: This is especially pivotal:
Now, i/l/o Plato in The Laws Bk X, tie it to:
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,
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?
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. KF
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.
KF
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.
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.)
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. KF
F/N: As a reminder, Locke’s alternative (citing Canon Hooker):
Remember, this is the context of the famous 2nd para, US DoI, 1776. Let me cite this, too, by way of reminder:
KF
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:
http://habermas-rawls.blogspot.....s-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!
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. KF
F/N:
>> Normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
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:
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
For instance:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
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.
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:
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.>>
KF
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.
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. KF
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:
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.
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. KF
‘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, we have committed the worst — and ongoing — holocaust in history in the past generation. That alone is proof enough. KF
F/N: One of the “interesting” responses to Carroll’s article is this:
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:
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.
KF
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.
JAD: Unfortunately, it could get a lot worse.
Don’t give up your guns.
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. KF
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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:
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:
The Carroll remark, of course, is a manifest case of that denial and dismissal.
KF
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.
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.
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.
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. KF
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. KF