worldview

As Dr Torley recently highlighted here at UD, Mr Dan Savage, an activist for homosexuality, recently tried to trash Bible-based Christian ethics (at a conference on bullying) by accusing the Bible of advocating slavery. (We need not elaborate on his publicly displayed ignorance on issues linked to the general, historic, NT-based Christian view on the ceremonial law in the Pentateuch, and his conflation of topics under that head with, say, relevant issues in sexual ethics and principles of core morality. Let’s just say that on ethics, I highly recommend Dr Torley’s discussion here.) When several dozen high school students walked away in protest at the tone and substance of his diatribe, he then proceeded to mock them. Oopsie! In response Read More ›

In the course of the exchanges on Dr Matzke’s clip on what “science” says can and cannot be so regarding miracles, he has made an interesting comment, here at 15: . . . I still haven’t seen anyone present a good argument as to why we can’t just say that science is the study of the usual course of events . . . Of course, he — sadly, misleadingly — failed to inform us that this highlighted phrase was taken from my own remarks in the original post (and which were followed up in the thread): It goes without needing emphasis that those who experienced the sequence A –> B –> C . . .  here [–> A, the last Read More ›

The ongoing debates over methodological naturalism have pointed us back to Newton’s Rules for scientific reasoning. So, thanks to Paul Halshall of Fordham University’s Modern History Sourcebook, let us cite for reference: ___________________ >> Modern History Sourcebook: Isaac Newton: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy [Excerpts] [The Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy] RULE I We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say, that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain, when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. RULE II Therefore to the same natural effects we Read More ›

In the ongoing Methodological Naturalism thread, at no. 66, Dr Matzke is on record: massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can’t happen. In short he holds that the laws of nature forbid miracles. (And recall, here, we are speaking about the late publicist for the US-based NCSE, for quite some years.) Oopsie. Double oopise. Triple oopsie. And cf. here, too. In a nutshell, Dr Matzke here seems to make a crude form of the error commonly attributed to Hume (and too often seen as a definitive dismissal of the miraculous). He also reveals that behind methodological naturalism, there may often lurk a prior (and perhaps implicit) commitment to Read More ›

Yesterday, UD’s News announced a free chart of fallacies. I thought, oh, yay, let’s download. But, once I began to look at the chart, I noticed that it presented Plato, Socrates and Aristotle in a way that seemed to mock the orthodox Christian triune concept of God. (Did it ever strike the creator of the chart, that Plato is a foundational design thinker? Cf here on.) Clue no 1. Clue no 2 was that many fallacies seemed to have odd names. And, “thou shalt not commit logical fallacies” in that context suggests that, as with too many presentations on fallacies I have seen online, this is an agenda in disguise: you object to “our” views because you are dumb and/or Read More ›

I passed by and noticed Gil’s go-to-the heart-of-the-matter comment on the “a picture is worth . . . “ thread: The worst part is that these clowns are destroying public trust in legitimate science. As usual, Gil has gone straight to the key point. When science and science education as well as popular science and science-related journalism are ideologised and made into little more than agenda talking points, sooner or later, science is going to pay the price for the ideologues we can see dressing themselves up in the holy lab coat and demanding genuflection before their favourite myths. (And of course, predictably, they will try to twist the issue about, and accuse those who challenge them of being “anti Read More ›

Other psychiatrists now find Norway massacre gunman Anders Behring Breivik ‘not insane’ – prison now possible

“The experts’ main conclusion is that the accused, Anders Behring Breivik, is not considered to have been psychotic at the time of the actions on July 22, 2011,” the Oslo district court said in a statement which reopens the debate on whether the self-confessed killer can be sent to prison.

“That means that he is considered criminally responsible at the time of the crime.”

The new evaluation counters the findings of an initial probe that found Breivik was suffering from “paranoid schizophrenia,” which meant he would most likely be sentenced to psychiatric care instead of prison.

Recall our first highly controversial post questioning:
Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist? Read More ›

Passed by and noticed Dr Hunter’s post on Nagel’s forthcoming book.  (And, objectors, Nagel is a serious philosopher of mind, writing in his area of expertise.  As in, author of “What is it like to be a bat?”) Going to the Oxford University Press [OUP] book page, I noticed another name popping up: Plantinga. As in, the man who blew away the logical form of the problem of evil. Passed by my thread on It’s Friday, but Sunday is coming, and saw Axel’s comment. Clipping: . . . while on the subject of the materialists’ desperation to quash any theistic assumption from scientific consideration, surely the proven precedence of mind over matter in physics points unequivocally to a personal God. Read More ›

What on earth does the title of a famous Good Friday Sermon have to do with the ID controversy? (Even, come Easter Sunday morning . . . ) A lot. Sadly. As I was reading and thinking about Dr Torley’s latest amazing UD series and some of UD’s ever so fascinating comments [one of the best features of UD is comments], I was led to look at the Dr Townes story, and related matters. One of the findings is how Dr Townes, a Nobel Prize holder for physics, turns out to be a cosmological design thinker who actually supports intelligent design in an evolutionary framework [i.e. pretty similar to Wallace, co-founder of modern evolutionary theory], but sees ID as anti-evolutionism. Read More ›

While promoters of the US Army-hosted “Rock Beyond Belief” concert that featured prof Dawkins (of The God Delusion notoriety) and Aiden (the band behind the “Atheist’s anthem” vid that features a vampire clergy image and worse lyrics) projected 5,000 attendees, reports suggest a turnout of about 200 , mostly “civilian[s].” (One guesses, many would be members of the local atheist fraternity.) That’s about a 90 – 95% over-estimate of attendance. According to reports: Fort Bragg’s Rock Beyond Belief passed quietly last Saturday.  While organizers had predicted a crowd of 5,000, Richard Dawkins, the main draw of the event whose “sell out” crowds were the justification for the attendance forecast, ultimately spoke to only “a couple hundred” spectators.  Photos of the Read More ›

This morning, on opening up my email acount, I encountered a comment from one of UD’s critics, LT, in which he pointed to this post at his blog, which begins: I am starting to come around to the way of thinking espoused by Kairosfocus [–>NB: I can claim no originality on this],  who has argued that we must build our worldviews from first principles and compare how different worldviews address various difficulties. The comparative aspect is important. If we have proper grasp of a fact–as in, for instance, an apple falling to earth–we should be able to reconcile the fact and the worldview. A worldview in which apples do not fall to earth (yes, I understand that “fall” is a Read More ›

Last time around, last May, the heart of the answer was: . . . if clever but willfully deceptive rhetors — Ms Forrest, B, with all due respect; sadly,  this means you — can get away with strawmannising and dismissing design thinkers as “Creationists in cheap tuxedos,” where it has already been firmly fixed in the public mind by other clever rhetors — Mr Dawkins, CR, with all due respect; sadly, this means you — that Creationists are “ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked,” and that such are fighting “a war against science” and want to impose “a right-wing theocracy” (presumably  complete with Inquisitions and burnings at the stake) then we can be distracted from the issues on the merits and Read More ›

As we continue to look at the issue of first principles of right reason, one of the key steps being taken by critics of the Law of Non-Contradiction [LNC] is to assert that we are here dealing with axioms unconnected to the real world, at least in relevant cases.

First, let us clip a recent comment to refresh our recollection of the why behind the classical laws of thought, which can here be seen as self-evident and thus “natural,” rather than arbitrary projections unto reality conditioned by genes and memes: Read More ›

The latest flare-ups in the debates over design theory in and around UD have pivoted on the Law of non-contradiction; one of the most debated classical principles of logic. Why on earth is that so? The simple short answer is: if we are to make progress in debates and discussions, we must be at minimum agreed on being reasonable and rational. In more details, LNC is one of a cluster of first principles of right reason that are pivotal to core rationality, and for years now, debates over design theory issues have often tracked back to a peculiar characteristic of the evolutionary materialist worldview: it tends strongly to reject the key laws of thought, especially, identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction, Read More ›

I have of course put in my own overall rebuttal to ES’s reply to SB’s challenge, but I feel a commentary on points will also be helpful. U/D, Feb 20: I have taken up the general LNC issue, here.) Such is best done using a full post, so, I clip from EL’s own post. My comments will be on numbered arrow points, and will be OLIVE GREEN: +++++++++++++ [EL:] On Uncommon Descent, Barry Arrington asks: [BA:] Let’s clear up this law of noncontradiction issue between StephenB and eigenstate once and for all. StephenB asks eigenstate: “Can the planet Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense? That’s a “yes or no” question eigenstate. How do Read More ›