They said it dept: ID objector JLA inadvertently underscores the absurd logical/worldview consequences of evolutionary materialism . . . QED

_{kairosfocus

June 1, 2013

Atheism, Culture, Video, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

One of our frequent objectors, JLA, has listed the consequences of evolutionary materialism, by way of objecting to BA’s further reply to the current crop of remarks at TSZ. (NB: I at first thought he might be being satirical, but, ~~sadly,~~ he is actually playing a straight hand. {Let me make this plain: FULL MARKS for sheer raw honesty. That needs to be respected and JLA must be treated with dignity. From what he says below, he is exposing what he sees as the too often unacknowledged consequences of evolutionary materialism, as what we could call an agnostic in transition.} )

I excerpted his list, and added some remarks on what the points reveal about evolutionary materialism. Not, because JLA is an opinion leader on the subject, or that he is saying something that has not been said by the likes of a Lewontin or a Provine or a Crick or even a Dawkins [cf. the just linked], but because in so speaking, he is frankly {U/D: and knowingly] exposing the consequences of the influence of such leading spokesmen on ordinary people.

And thereby ~~inadvertently~~ confirming the cogency and relevance of the concerns about the absurd and potentially destructive consequences of evolutionary materialism that have been put on record since the days of Plato in The Laws, Bk X.

As well as, exposing the telling relevance of Jesus’ classic warning about thinking oneself enlightened when in fact one is en-darkened because one’s eyes [reason and conscience] have gone bad; in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matt 6:²²“The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. ²³But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! [NET]

Or, if you will, we can put it in terms of Plato’s Parable of the Cave, here viewed in terms of living by the false light of the artfully set up shadow shows in the cave (and onlookers may enjoy the “duppy story” here . . . as, the ghosts of Plato and Socrates came by for a visit recently):

[youtube d2afuTvUzBQ]

So, while I apologise in advance for embarrassment that may be caused, with all due respect, I need to hold up a mirror so that those willing to awaken will be able to see what is really going on.

From my response in the thread, which excerpts several of JLA’s points and comments on them on points:

_____________

>> No objective, absolute, inherent meaning in life or the universe
• No objective, absolute, inherent purpose in life or the universe
• No objective, absolute, inherent value in life or the universe>>

1 –> Thus, no basis for good/evil etc, and so one may not use evil as an objection to anything. Might and manipulation make ‘right.” This is what Plato pointed out in The Laws Bk X.

2 –> Kindly highlight these to TSZ for me as they will not believe it from the likes of me.

>>• We are the cobbled together Frankensteins of billions of years of trial and error>>

3 –> First point of direct trouble empirically, as we are anything but cobbled together, from the cellular molecular nanotech level up, what we see is elegant and sophisticated evident contrivance.

4 –> This is part of why the first stage of my challenge to such materialists is kindly explain on empirical evidence, OOL.

>>• No objective, absolute, inherent morality in life or the universe. No good, no evil, no right, no wrong>>

5 –> Thus, amorality and nihilism as Plato warned. But this flies in the teeth of the undeniable fact of moral governance, and is unlivable. (Cf here.)

>>• No objective, absolute, inherent truth in life or the universe
• No objective, absolute, inherent knowledge in life or the universe
• No objective, absolute, inherent logic in life or the universe>>

6 –> Absolute — untainted, undiluted truth and knowledge are a little different from objective [warranted, credibly so].

7 –> The first test is Royce’s assertion, Error exists, E. It is easy to show that by forming C = { E AND NOT-E}, that C must be false. On meaning,t hen NOT-E is false, and so E is undeniably true. This is an objective truth warranted to undeniable certainty, so that it is absolutely true.

8 –> Warranted, true belief is actually strong form knowledge, and so knowledge also exists.

9 –> As for logic and first principles of right reason, simply reflect on the self evident status of the identity cluster and the principle of sufficient reason, and one sees that likewise such collapses. [Cf. here.]

10 –> A world view that asserts confidently things in the teeth of such foundational self-evident truths is irretrievably irrational and false.

>>• We have no free-will, mind, consciousness, rationality or reason. They are illusions and our very personhood, identity and humanity are not real.>>

11 –> No ability to reason and to think straight. That is reductio ad absurdum.

>> • The emotions we express are just chemicals in our brain. The very things we seek in life like happiness, peace, contentment, joy are just chemicals reducing us to nothing more than chemical addicts.>>

12 –> if emotions are just chemicals, so is thinking, and the rest collapses again. Chemical interactions are not even in the same category as consciousness linked experiences such as love, or perceiving the truthfulness of Pons Asinorum in Geometry.

>>• We are no more important than other animals. A dog is a rat is a pig is a boy. >>

13 –> So, we can kill off people like rats if they get out of control? Do you really want to go there? As in, let us note (in the teeth of the recent JME proposal for “post-birth abortion) from over 30 years past where Schaeffer and Koop gave warning in the series, Whatever Happened to the Human Race:

[youtube 8uoFkVroRyY]

___________

I had wondered if JLA, of course , may be writing satirically here. Unfortunately, he removed all doubt. (Caution, vulgar language used.)

He really meant the above , and really did not seem to be aware of the full consequences of such thinking. Inadvertently exposing the systematic gaps in our education and the popular media presentations of issues (as well as highlighting the sophomoric nature of New Atheist bombast . . . ), in an era of mass, media-fanned scientism.

QED.

I trust the TSZ denizens are noticing. END

PS: I suggested to JLA, that he may want to see [1] how a worldview level analysis leads to the credibility of generic theism, and how onwards, [2] one may find good warrant to hold to Judaeo-Christian theism. The comments here in reply to Dawkins’ attempt in a Playboy interview to dismiss the historicity of Jesus, may also help.

Comments

GUN: Kindly take a moment to look in the dictionary as a first reference, before trying to subjectivise "objective" and turn it into little more than a rhetorical trick appealing to emotions:
objective [?b?d??kt?v] adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions are there objective moral values? 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc. [Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003]
That is, in this context, objective has to do with empirical and logical warrant that supports the credibility of the conclusion that a claim or belief or assertion is true, i.e. accurately describes that which exists as reality. In short, objectivity here is a major device for giving assurance that something is credibly a case of knowledge, not delusion or opinion that rests on mere tastes and preferences. At worldviews level, you are looking at ultimates, and at comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. If you wish to trace morality to senses of empathy etc, you need to ground that, e.g. on the perceived equality, value and worth of the other. But that is exactly what is often at stake, from two directions. Equating animals from rats to pigs to boys leads to the challenge I posed by direct parallel to rats getting out of control. Instead, viewing things as being at distinct levels then runs right into the life unworthy of being lived challenge that had such destructive consequences seventy odd years ago. And so forth. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

CD: Kindly, watch your language. (As, you have been warned by the blog owner already.) The first thing that is good, is that you recognise that the pattern of statements, would be a most undesirable feature of a worldview, to the point where you tried to dismiss with a vulgarity and thought this was being made up and pasted unto evolutionary materialism by those who do not accept it. As you will see in a moment, the first part is good, you undeniably reject the sort of picture being painted. The second part, is going to be a surprise for you, on the actual source of that summary. You are also failing to address the underlying issue, worldview foundations and implications. That is actually what the author JLA, was drawing out. Now, JLA has been bringing out what he understands, as an agnostic, is the implication of an evolutionary materialistic view. He patently does not like the implications, but that is what he sees as the consequences of such a worldview. And, he is not at all alone in such a conclusion. Here are a few thoughts on the subject, from far more senior spokesmen for the view . . . as you will see I explicitly cited JLA above as showing the implications as they affect ordinary people, not as a primary source by any means. That primary source is the inherent logic of the evolutionary materialist view, on its assumptions about root reality, cf my in-a-nutshell here and onward here. But there are significant figures among those who advocated evolution and even evolutionary materialism as world class spokespeople who have admitted much the same point:
1: Haldane, a leading evolutionary thinker and Marxist who was a major voice a generation ago:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
2: William Provine, well known Cornell U prof of the history of biology, speaking at the 1998 Darwin Day event in U of Tenn:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .
--> A whole train of consequences cited in the OP flows directly from the two highlighted implications. --> Which, note, save for absence of free will -- which IS a logical implication of evo mat, just hard to swallow in the teeth of our experience of the reality of choice . . . -- are not even controversial among naturalistic thinkers. 3] Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, and Nobel Prize holder, in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis:
"You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
--> This fleshes out the "no free will" point by Provine. --> Some argue "emergence" or "compatibilism" but these have a habit of falling back into reductive materialism of the Crick kind, or else end up unacknowledgedly moving away from materialism. 4] Dawkins -- yes, him, writing in Sci Am in 1995:
The true process that has endowed wings, eyes, beaks, nesting instincts and everything else about life with the strong illusion of purposeful design is now well understood. It is Darwinian natural selection . . . . The true utility function of life, that which is being maximized in the natural world, is DNA survival. But DNA is not floating free; it is locked up in living bodies, and it has to make the most of the levers of power at its disposal. Genetic sequences that find themselves in cheetah bodies maximize their survival by causing those bodies to kill gazelles. Sequences that find themselves in gazelle bodies increase their chance of survival by promoting opposite ends. But the same utility function-the survival of DNA-explains the “purpose” of both the cheetah [--> i.e. predator] and the gazelle [--> i.e. prey] . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]

If you compare the list JLA compiled, you will see that it is strikingly parallel to such statements, and for no surprising reason: the implications are pretty obvious. So, you are in a vice of your own making. On one jaw you have viscerally rejected the description and list of consequences of evolutionary materialism. On the other, you (having mistakenly thought these were projected unto evo mat by objectors . . . ) are now in a position to know that the logic of the case and the stated opinion of leading voices confirms the accuracy of the implications. So now, you have to face the worldview level absurdity of evolutionary materialism, knowing that if it holds true, it directly implies severe undermining of reason and morality. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

No objective, absolute, inherent morality in life or the universe. No good, no evil, no right, no wrong
The more I see these debates and discussions, the more convinced I'm becoming that such modifiers, especially the term "objective," have no actual meaning in this context. They are empty signifiers, having no real meaning. The terms sound good and give a certain "oomph," but nothing more. I believe that morality comes from empathy and reason. I'm not sure if I would say that morality is objective or not (since I don't even know what that would mean; I understand what it means to say that the moon is objectively larger than a bread box, and that 2 + 2 = 4, but what does it mean to say that something is objectively morally wrong?) But I would say that there's certainly an inter-subjectivity on morality. In what way does the existence of God make morality objective? Assuming that there is a God, who has rules for us, what about those rules would be morally objective? In what way would "right and wrong" exist if there is a God as opposed to if there isn't? For instance, why is rape wrong? Is it only because the Bible says not to? If the Bible neglected to mention anything about rape, I doubt anyone that currently believes rape to be wrong would think it was ok. And when asked why rape is bad, Christians will usually give reasons that have empathy and reason as the basis. If there is a God who created the universe, I would agree that it's probably a good idea to follow His rules. If I believed the Bible, I would try to follow its rules and teachings. But the basis for my morality wouldn't change. I would follow the rules for my own subjective reasons - because I believe that God knows what's best for us - in other words, because of reason and empathy (although fear of Hell would be an additional motivation).goodusername_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

of note: This following video solidly debunks the internet pagan myth of Osiris and Horus being parallel to Jesus; Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIGPF2U1Rhwbornagain77_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Walked straight into that one huh billmaz? ,,, Though not as detailed and concise as kf's notes on the copycat myth, here are my notes on the authenticity of the shroud of Turin: Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit Of particular note: Shroud Of Turin - Photographic Negative - 3D Hologram - The Lamb - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5664213/ Turin Shroud 3-D Hologram - Face And Body - Dr. Petrus Soons - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5889891/bornagain77_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

That list is absolute [--> you were warned on language, KF]. If thats what you think life is without god, then youre implying god gives us all those things. Id rather find them for myself. Cmon people you can be a good person without bringing god into it.CharlieD_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

F/N: BM, again this is off-topic; I suggest you look at my notes here on the general issue of the pagan copycat thesis, and here where you will find more details on Mithraism in particular. The general notion of syncretism of Judaism with pagan thought has long been exposed as not credible -- the worldviews are simply too far apart in the first instance. They cannot mesh, period. Worldviews thinking saves us from many errors. Christianity, is the same -- its roots are distinctly Hebraic and Hebrews the most influenced by Greek thought (and simultaneously the most militantly Hebraic text in the NT at the same time) was written to undercut same decisively, with a clear eye on what was going on in Alexandria. To see the degree of distance, go read the Maccabees, which in C1 was in effect like a record of the last successful uprising against pagan overlordship. Observe just how militantly the Hebrews rejected syncretism. And when he was in Athens, Paul had a "paroxysm" when he saw the idols, a viscerally hostile reaction. His "objects of veneration" in Ac 17 on Mars Hill was very diplomatic language, probably said while bridling his tongue sharply from what he would have probably liked to say if he gave his feelings free course. That Paul would lead a pagan synthesis of Hebraic thought is positively laughable. That he would find points of contact and use them to convey the gospel to pagans so they could at least get his point, is record. Now, I trust we can get back on topic -- this is beginning to take on the tones of a side-track (though that m=is probably not a deliberate intent). KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Thanks, JLA, they are very helpful.billmaz_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Bill Don't know if this is helpful but I thought I would share. Take it as you will. http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/mith/index.htm http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.htmlJLAfan2001_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

BM: This is taking the thread off track again, but Mary was the espoused wife -- a super engagement only breakable by divorce, but during which there was no going in the window -- of Joseph, not his wife taken into his home via an official ceremony, and by the time he took her fully to wife she had been with child by miracle, per the scriptures. The validation of which on such matters, pivots on the resurrection in fulfillment of centuries old prophecies in the scriptures of what we know as the OT e.g. c 700 BC Isa 52 - 53, cf here on. That is the context of his intent to put her away, he was persuaded by miracle. The cases are simply not comparable. Mithraism's claimed parallels are similarly grossly exaggerated [as are those of Egyptian paganism and so forth], as you can check -- and BTW pagan gods' lustful proclivities for pretty girls (often to the discomfiture of their goddess wives, hence e.g the story of how the Milky Way got its name after one of these scandalous legends . . . ), is utterly distinct from the virginal conception of Jesus -- you are seeing a paralle tha tis not there, I have to go now. Later, this is off topic. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

billmaz writes:
Christianity borrowed from many traditions. The virgin conception by a god was a very familiar theme in ancient religions. Hercules, Perseus, Theseus, and Achilles were all said to have had a god for a parent. Dionysus, son of Zeus, worshipped in Jerusalem during the 1st Century, was of a virgin birth. Followers ate bread and drank wine to symbolize his blood and flesh, and his birthday was celebrated on December 25th. Oh yes, and a star shone above the site where he was born.
Christianity might have, but not all Christian denominations follow such traditions. Jesus himself condemned the religious leaders of his day for making the word of God invalid by their slavish devotion to man-made tradition.Barb_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

KF: Christ's mother was married too. And Christ had brothers. Why don't you address the other examples I cited, Mithraism for one, which seems to be the closest to Christianity.billmaz_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

BM: The copycat gods thesis has long passed sell-by date. Many of the claims above and many other similar ones are outright false, and the rest are ill grounded and speculative, indeed often reflecting a reading back from known Christian views or beliefs that reshapes pagan ones in ways that are unwarranted. For one instance, as I recall, Krishna's mother was married, not a virgin, that is an example of the sort of reading back game. From Wiki, confirming: "By the time of conception and birth of Krishna, Devaki was married to Vasudeva and had already borne 7 children." Some fact checking will show the problems. Similarly, the NT view of Jesus' birth EXCLUDE Dec 25th or thereabouts as birthday, as Shepherds would not be in the fields. The day was chosen as an "official" birthday to fit more or less the Winter Solstice, giving cheer at that darkest time of year without having to get involved with pagan festivities. And the degree of light in the North increases steadily to Pentecost, highly symbolic to those familiar with the imagery in John. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

JLA: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Pardon if they are a bit embarrassing to be shared. Forgive, it is necessary to face issues. I see you are taking a bit of distance from the thoughts, which is good. Before I head off, I note on your:
At the same time, even though the implications are horrible doesn’t mean God exists.
True enough as it stands, albeit, it is a classic point in logic that if the acceptance/ rejection of an idea leads straight and sure into absurdity, rethink that acceptance/ rejection. And, on the table here is the undermining of reason itself as a consequence of evolutionary materialism. Let me clip again Haldane's point on that:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (Highlight and emphases added.)]
I have already highlighted in the OP and elsewhere, where you can access a ground up worldview grounding exercise. And, one clear conclusion of that is that theism is a very reasonable worldview to take; on many grounds. Even, Judaeo-Christian theism, not just God of the philosophers. Which patently is a lot more than can be said for evolutionary materialism in light of the highlighted problems. I hope this exchange can be helpful to all around, and again, full marks to you for sheer raw honesty. KF PS: One of the important issues to observe is that God is a serious candidate to be a necessary being, unlike the spaghetti monster (an obviously composite being) or the like. That implies that if God is not, it is because God is an IMPOSSIBILITY. That's a pretty stiff standard of warrant to meet, for those who would deny or dismiss the existence of God. And nope, it is not even seriously on the cards to play the no belief in god default view game. We are dealing with worldviews here, not debate games. Every tub must stand on its own bottom in light of comparative difficulties.kairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

The faithful referred to him as “The Light of the World.” He was born of a virgin who was referred to as “Mother of God,” he was part of a Holy Trinity, celibate throughout his life, extolled justice, renounced riches and sensual things, had twelve apostles and viewed life as a struggle between the forces of Good and Evil. He preached that there will be a Judgment Day at which time the dead will be resurrected, the earth will experience a final conflict between the forces of light and darkness and the present order will be destroyed. Thereafter, light will forever reign on earth. This duality continues in the afterlife in the form of Heaven and Hell. After he completed his earthly mission, he had a Last Supper with his twelve apostles and ascended to Heaven, after which his followers conducted ceremonies that included the drinking of wine and the eating of bread to symbolize his blood and flesh. Baptism was practiced as a ritual of purification. December 25th was celebrated annually as his birth and Sunday was the holy day of the week. No, it isn’t Christianity, but Mithraism, the last pagan religion of the Roman Empire. It began in Persia in the 6th or 7th century BCE and eventually spread through India to China and throughout the Roman Empire. Relics of the Mithraic religion have been found in Britain, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Armenia and throughout North Africa. It was the favorite religion of the Roman soldiers because it celebrated brotherly love and physical action in the name of justice and truth. It lasted over three hundred years and was then overtaken by Christianity, which didn’t hesitate in borrowing a few items along the way. Christianity borrowed from many traditions. The virgin conception by a god was a very familiar theme in ancient religions. Hercules, Perseus, Theseus, and Achilles were all said to have had a god for a parent. Dionysus, son of Zeus, worshipped in Jerusalem during the 1st Century, was of a virgin birth. Followers ate bread and drank wine to symbolize his blood and flesh, and his birthday was celebrated on December 25th. Oh yes, and a star shone above the site where he was born. Attis, a Phrygian god from Asia Minor, was born on December 25th to a virgin mother, later was crucified at Easter and descended for three days into the underworld. He rose on Easter Sunday to save humanity from eternal damnation. His followers symbolize eating his flesh by eating bread on holy days. Adonis, born of a virgin, was killed by a wild boar and resurrected. In India, “Krishna the Savior,” not dissimilar to Christ the Savior, was born on December 25th when Vishnu sent a thought into the womb of the virgin Devaki. Buddha was born of a virgin mother named Maya after she was visited by the “Holy Ghost.” In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. The prophet Zoroaster was also born of a virgin. Death and resurrection is also old territory: Osiris, Adonis, Balder, and Dionysus all died and were resurrected.billmaz_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Yes, my 15 minutes of fame. I would like to thank the academy, my parents, my wife for being so supportive and all the fans. This one's for you :) Seriously, I'm best described as an agnostic right now. I was actually being somewhat serious in all my comments. I'm sick and tired of atheists accusing theists of being in a delusion but not recognizing there own. At the same time, even though the implications are horrible doesn't mean God exists. Like Nietzsche said "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" Either we live as if there is a God or we live as if we are a God. Either way is a delusion and the only truth to follow is Nihilism no matter how uncomfortable it may be. Nietzsche was at least honest.JLAfan2001_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

billmaz @ 10:
But Barb, are you suggesting we abandon science? You want to go back to millions of people dying from the plague? Science is not the problem, man is. Science is knowledge. What man does with it is his burden.
No, of course not. But those who practice science should be held accountable for what they do, whether good or bad.
What you are saying is that man has not evolved spiritually as quickly as he has evolved scientifically. I think everyone agrees and bemoans that fact. The answer is to gain wisdom, not forego knowledge. There really is only one direction, that’s forward. Forward toward acquiring wisdom together with scientific knowledge.
The problem with gaining wisdom is that it begins with fearing God, according to the book of Proverbs. How many scientists can you think of that have that type of wisdom? There's a great scene in the movie "Jurassic Park" where the chaotician played by Jeff Goldblum tells Hammond that "Your scientists were so busy creating dinosaurs because they could, they didn't stop to think if they should!" Ideas and actions have consequences. Scientists should be aware of this fact. If evolution is truly only a scientific theory, then it shouldn't be applied to philosophy or politics or society (i.e., social Darwinism). However, the notion that Darwin's theory allowed for God to disappear from the world scene has had (and is having) far-reaching consequences.Barb_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

I'm with Barb on this one. This idea that Hicks espouses is an interesting idea, but that's all one can really say about it. It goes against the clear teaching of God's Word.
In the light of modern anthropological knowledge some form of two-stage conception of the creation of man has become an almost unavoidable Christian tenet. At the very least we must acknowledge as two distinguishable stages the fashioning of homo sapiens as a product of the long evolutionary process, and his sudden or gradual spiritualization as a child of God. But we may well extend the first stage to include the development of man as a rational and responsible person capable of personal relationship with the personal Infinite God who has created him. This first stage of the creative process was, to our anthropomorphic imaginations, easy for divine omnipotence. By an exercise of creative power God caused the physical universe to exist, and in the course of countless ages to bring forth within it organic life, and finally to produce out of organic life personal life; and when man had thus emerged out of the evolution of the forms of organic life, a creature had been made who has the possibility of existing in conscious fellowship with God.
Not sure how you determine what modern anthropological knowledge is. That seems a bit difficult in that we are dealing with the unobservable past. Modern anthropological "knowledge" is here seen to trump the very Word of the Creator and this is not "Christian" at all. It is God's Word that is truth, not the ever changing musings of modern anthropologists. Man was created in God's image directly from the dust of the ground and Eve was created from the side of Adam. That is the clear teaching of the Creator. There was no two stage creation involving either a sudden or a gradual spiritualization as a child of God as far as the Bible is concerned. Even Jesus Himself said that God created them male and female at the beginning of creation - not after billions of years of evolution. So as an interesting idea, it is fine, but let's not pretend it is a Christian idea. If that is really your view, then it seems like you think the Bible is quite pliable and can be made to fit with any secular ideas of "knowledge." But that is not what Jesus thought of God's Word. So I think you have to decide which is going to bend to accommodate the other - the Bible to anthropology or the interpretations of anthropologists to God's truth. Sorry for getting of the "scientific" track here, but when we are dealing with origins, God's Word has to come into play as well. Evolutionary science is not the arbiter of truth by any means.tjguy_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

BM: Science, is not to be equated to a priori materialism a la Lewontin, which is close to the issues highlighted in the OP. Methinks, there are some serious implications of Evo Mat on the table -- issues that are not commonly acknowledged much less soberly discussed -- that need to be squarely faced, not diverted from. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

BM: You may find that this, on the problem of good and evil, gives helpful perspective. Note the Plantinga response to the problem. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

But Barb, are you suggesting we abandon science? You want to go back to millions of people dying from the plague? Science is not the problem, man is. Science is knowledge. What man does with it is his burden. What you are saying is that man has not evolved spiritually as quickly as he has evolved scientifically. I think everyone agrees and bemoans that fact. The answer is to gain wisdom, not forego knowledge. There really is only one direction, that's forward. Forward toward acquiring wisdom together with scientific knowledge.billmaz_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

F/N: Part 3 of Scheffer's video series is briefly discussed and exhibited here. Food for sobering thought in light of "A dog is a rat is a pig is a boy." KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

If evo mat is true, then life is merely a glorified Monopoly game. JLA's logic is sound. Richard Dawkins and William Provine both made similar statements: ultimately, there is no good or evil or morality in a purposeless universe. Look at the effects evolution has had on philosophy and politics. Why does one nation succeed in conquering another nation? Why does one race prevail over another race? The Origin of Species, with its emphasis on natural selection and survival of the fittest, gave explanations that stirred the leading philosophers of the 19th century. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Karl Marx (1818-1883) were philosophers who had a profound effect on politics. Both were fascinated by evolution. “Darwin’s book is important,” said Marx, “and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history.” Historian Will Durant called Nietzsche a “child of Darwin.” The book Philosophy—An Outline-History summarized one of Nietzsche’s beliefs: “The strong, brave, domineering, proud, fit best the society that is to be.” Darwin believed—and wrote in a letter to a friend—that in the future “an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” He used as a precedent the European conquest of others and chalked this up to “the struggle for existence.” Thus, “survival of the fittest” took on philosophical, social, and political overtones, often to an absurd extent. “To some war became ‘a biological necessity,’” said the book Milestones of History. And this book noted that during the next century, “Darwinian ideas formed an integral part of Hitler’s doctrine of racial superiority.” Really, of what benefit is it when man can travel to the moon but cannot solve the basic problems of the human family? Did the invention of increasingly destructive weapons, such as the atom bomb, bring an end to wars and ethnic violence? Have the accomplishments of science significantly diminished crime, family breakup, sexually transmitted diseases, immorality, illegitimate births, corruption in high places, poverty, hunger, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution? No, science has, if anything, made some of these things worse. Abandoning God and substituting evolution and science, the human family has not helped its situation but has hurt it. Not surprisingly, many are having second thoughts about the theory that man evolved from apelike creatures, as opposed to there being a God who created the first humans. A Gallup poll in the United States revealed that only 9 percent of Americans hold to the belief that man evolved with no divine intervention; 47 percent accept the idea that God created man in his present form.Barb_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Following the link in #5 in kf’s piece (Cf, here) I came across a treatise by John Hick called “Evil and soul-making” (here) which caught my interest. It envisions that man is on earth to “learn,” to first evolve biologically and eventually spiritually into a person in “fellowship with God.” Evil and good are here for man to have free will and thus learn from his mistakes to eventually evolve into a spiritual being. In the light of modern anthropological knowledge some form of two-stage conception of the creation of man has become an almost unavoidable Christian tenet. At the very least we must acknowledge as two distinguishable stages the fashioning of homo sapiens as a product of the long evolutionary process, and his sudden or gradual spiritualization as a child of God. But we may well extend the first stage to include the development of man as a rational and responsible person capable of personal relationship with the personal Infinite God who has created him. This first stage of the creative process was, to our anthropomorphic imaginations, easy for divine omnipotence. By an exercise of creative power God caused the physical universe to exist, and in the course of countless ages to bring forth within it organic life, and finally to produce out of organic life personal life; and when man had thus emerged out of the evolution of the forms of organic life, a creature had been made who has the possibility of existing in conscious fellowship with God. I would first like to point out that Hick accepts evolution as the first biological step in man’s development. In fact, the biological evolution of man as a gradual process seems to form part of the basis of his tenets. But let’s set that aside for now. He may have used it “metaphorically?” But there is a more fundamental problem with this notion. This idea looks at “man” as one entity, rather than millions and billions of men and women who have evolved and died before they entered the second stage of “fellowship with God.” What happened to all these people who lived and died over the millennia? Are they reincarnated to continue their evolution, or are they no more? It seems to me that at the very least the notion of reincarnation needs to be involved here in order to give each individual soul, not the aggregate species that the above notion conflates, a chance to evolve. Then there is the issue of God’s punishment, as proposed by Christian religions. In Hick’s treatise, man is seen as an evolving creature, both biologically and spiritually, as a child who is in the process of learning good and evil. Such critics as Hume are confusing what heaven ought to be, as an environment for perfected finite beings, with what this world ought to be, as an environment for beings who are in process of becoming perfected. Men are not to be thought of on the analogy of animal pets, whose life is to be made as agreeable as possible, but rather on the analogy of human children, who are to grow to adulthood in an environment whose primary and overriding purpose is not immediate pleasure but the realizing of the most valuable potentialities of human personality. And, The question that we have to ask is rather, Is this the kind of world that God might make as an environment in which moral beings may be fashioned, through their own free insights and responses, into "children of God"? So if God’s plan is to allow us to learn, both from our mistakes and our good choices, in a process of biological and spiritual evolution, where does eternal damnation come in, pray tell? Why would such a God send someone to Hell for an eternity for making a mistake? Would you or I use capital punishment for our children? Are we more benevolent and merciful than God? Would we even have a Hell? The conclusion is that we must throw out the idea of a Hell altogether, otherwise the whole concept of learning from our mistakes and evolving into “children of God” falls apart. It is interesting that other religions (Buddhism for example) don’t have a concept of Hell in which souls are punished for mistakes performed in life. Another issue comes up, though: The idea of “soul making.” This notion, first of all, implies time. Time exists in this physical universe, but does time exist in the spiritual world? If a soul is “made” in the sense implied in Hick’s piece, it means that there was a time in which man’s soul did not exist. Then God created it. This means time exists in God’s world. But I thought God exists outside of time and space. Even today’s cosmologists theorize that time began at the big bang. What does eternal time mean? How does one exist eternally but with the passage of time? The above treatise also does not address the immortality of the soul. It implies that only through the fellowship with God do we gain eternal life. But what of those souls who are not yet evolved to that point? Don’t they have a second, fifth, 100th chance? Isn’t the point of evolving toward a “fellowship with God” a gradual process of learning? Again, the treatise treats “man” as one entity evolving over time to reach a certain point of spiritual wisdom. But that is not what we have. Man is not one entity, but billions of entities, all of whom learn their lessons at different rates and abilities. Everyone starts out ignorant at birth and begins to learn from ground zero, from ignorance, and has to learn all the lessons of life on his or her own. So is the soul of man immortal or not? Since it was “made” by God, it means it did not always exist, so it is not eternal, at least not going backward in time. It may be eternal going forward in time, at least those who have attained “fellowship with God” in one lifetime. But all this implies time exists in “Heaven.” The idea that souls are here to “learn” has many problems. If souls are immortal and eternal, they already “know” everything. If they are not, then it brings up all the other problems I delineated and a myriad others I have not. Back to the drawing board.billmaz_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

G: While you have some amends to make, I will tolerate the above. Worldview foundations and issues of principles of right reason, starting from common-sense level and moving on to a more consciously examined basis are prior to all other reasoning. And, to doubt the concept of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, you have of course provided an example in point, 103 ASCII characters constituting a text in English. The reality of FSCO/I is not in doubt, nor is the only empirically warranted source. Design. However, this is a discussion on much more serious worldview matters and I will gavel a tangent that pulls off track. There are other places in easy reach, even at UD, to discuss FSCO/I. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

FSCO/I has more scientific rigor behind it than anything unguided evolution can provide.Joe_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

"this starts with worldview issues, that is the basis for all else including science." - KF Even FSCO/I?Gregory_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

TJ: We have to give JLA full marks for honesty. I hope TSZ's denizens are paying attention. I trust JLA will be able to see the reductio and will recognise that he can rebuild his worldview and life on a better foundation. I suggest here on, as is linked above in the PS to the OP, as a start. (The discussion pivots on first principles of reason and a pivotal warranted, credible, generally acknowledged and undeniable truth: Josiah Royce's "error exists.") And yes, this starts with worldview issues, that is the basis for all else including science. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

I was actually encouraged by his post. It shows he is really grappling with the implications of throwing away his faith and he has not completely given up on God yet. In the context of his post, he is arguing against a guy who was coming across as a Materialist! Turns out this buy claims to believe in some kind of a god, but JLA was showing him the clear implications of materialism and it seemed to have a real impact on the other guy. If someone understands the true implications of materialism, I honestly don't see how anyone can really believe it. Deep down in our hearts, we all know that life has real meaning. It seems foolish to deny this because no one can live as it that is true. Maybe inconsistencies like that don't matter in a purely materialistic world, but that would bother me.tjguy_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

F/N: I had hoped this was satire, but sadly, it seems not so. Let us ponder the implications of evolutionary materialism.kairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply