Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science writer Mark Oppenheimer asks if misogyny will bring down the atheist movement

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We’ll let him tell it:

“I ran into Shermer in the hallway,” Smith said recently, speaking publicly for the first time about what happened that night. They began talking, and he invited her to a Scotch and cigar party at the Caesars Palace hotel. “He was talking about future articles we could write, and he mentioned this party and asked if I could come, and I said yes.” At the party, they began downing drinks. “At some point,” Smith said, “I realized he wasn’t drinking them; he was hiding them underneath the table and pretending to drink them. I was drunk. After that, it all gets kind of blurry. I started to walk back to my hotel room, and he followed me and caught up with me.”

On their way from Caesars to the Flamingo, where they were both staying, she chatted briefly with a friend on her mobile phone, she told me. They got to the Flamingo. “He offered to walk me back to my room, but walked me to his instead. I don’t have a clear memory of what happened after that. I know we had sex.” She remembers calling a friend from an elevator after leaving his room. “I was in the elevator, but didn’t know what hotel.”

Over the next couple days, word spread around the convention that they had hooked up — whether the rumors began with what she told people, what he told people, or what others oversaw, it isn’t clear. Shermer went into damage-control mode. More.

Or less, maybe.

A while back, we ran a story about some stuff like this, here.

In case you wondered, you really were better off in adult Sunday School, arguing about whether God is timeless. Go back now. That’ll never end up in court. This stuff might.

See also: Fun for philosophers: Is God in time or not? (If you want something more uplifting)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Mung: Barb, do you think the Watchtower Society is misogynist? Barb: No, I don’t. What a stupid question to ask. Women and Submission God's View of Women According to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Women Who Are Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses Barb probably isn't allowed to read these "apostate" articles. Mung
None so blind, A_b... Or perhaps it's just that you are not old enough to remember when hardcore porn and its effects on pre-teens, such as I mentioned, as well as the Jamie Bolger case, could not even have been imagined. Anyway, I suspect our attitudes have both been too hardened, rightly or wrongly, for these exchanges to go anywhere. Axel
Axel, I don't have a police state. I don't live in the US. With regard to going to he'll in a hand cart, this simply isn't reflected in reality. Crime rates have been steadily declining for decades. Society is far from perfect, but I don't think there is any evidence that secularization has had an affect, positive or negative. Acartia_bogart
The US, itself, is reputed to be the most religious country in the Western world, but that has been made a nonsense by its actual, immemorial materialism and inevitably concomitant violence and trail-blazing sexual licence. The kindest thing that can be said about its leaders is that, if one granted that they possessed integrity, their record would be that of a collection of people with respective IQs equal to their age. The reality is that the 1% have the nation in a vice-like grip, and they have a perspective that makes Mr Magoo seem like a sharp-shooter. Slavery, the colour bar in the South, putatively the most religious part, and lingering hatred of the African Americans, nationwide, did for any hope Christianity had of avoiding the extremely confused state in which it finds itself there today. You can find posters on US Christian forums questioning the wisdom of abolishing slavery! Not envisaging themselves as the slaves, I'm sure. Another unpleasant dystopian feature is that following the Patriot Act, you now have a police state. Axel
Yes, that is obviously true, A_B, but sex slavery... I don't think so. I have never read any suggestion that, unlike paedophilia, it had been a hidden horror, but on the contrary, that it has been a sudden massive unparalleled irruption. You read reports of it in the press and online, sometimes citing studies, but unless you're a serious student of a subject, I doubt if most of us record links, etc. But I'm sure it would be verified through various Google links. In any case, it was inevitable. Without the civilizing constraints of Christian faith, the world has been going to hell in a handcart, hasn't it? I mean, in the fifties, people were hardly angels, but even professional villains would have found it impossible to imagine the kind of insane outrages that occur today. Women ripping babies from another (living), pregnant woman's womb, etc., 9-year old lads raping and sodomizing their little class-mates, for crying out loud. Axel
Axel: "Doesn’t a massive increase in sex-slavery, world-wide, count? And pornography and pole-dancing, in which the women eventually effectively end up the same, drug-addicted and unable to see their way out of it?" Could you provide a link to your claim? Is this a real increase, or is it just in a creased awareness of something that has been going on for centuries. For example, if you read the media, or even look at police reports, you would conclude that pedophilia is on the increase. But prior to fairly recent times, these events were swept under the rug because the perpetrator is often a family member. Acartia_bogart
Just a bit of fun, I suppose. All right. I put my hands up. I'm just becoming an old wowser, a wet blanket. Sorry. Axel
A_b Doesn't a massive increase in sex-slavery, world-wide, count? And pornography and pole-dancing, in which the women eventually effectively end up the same, drug-addicted and unable to see their way out of it? Axel
"Since you can’t explain why atheism (Darwinism) has not resulted in an increase in misogyny..." Not having absolute moral values to draw from results in ethical and moral problems, including misogyny. For example, Richard Dawkins on Twitter:
On Twitter, he wrote: “X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.” One’s immediate reaction is: Calm down, dear, why would I think that? They both sound bad. Of course, we don’t denote that from your formula. Why don’t you “go away” and come back with something more convincing? Then, storm waters not sufficiently roiled, Dawkins added: “Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.” And then, pedophilia being yesterday’s old hat, he had to one-up himself with, “Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”
From here:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/31/atheist-king-richard-dawkins-s-rape-fantasy.html Misogynist much? Barb
Mung, The behavior you decribe is demonstrated precisely because atheists have nothing enduring beyond their own opinion upon which to base their ethical and moral decisions. Consider Andrew R. MacAndrew's translation of the famous quote in The Brothers Karamazov.
Rakitin now—-he doesn't like God, doesn't like Him at all. To people like him, God is a sore spot. But they hide it, they lie, they pretend. 'Will you,' I asked him, 'try to develop these ideas in your literary criticism?' 'They won't let me do it too openly,' he said, and laughed. 'But tell me,' I asked him, 'what will happen to men? If there's no God and no life beyond the grave, doesn't that mean that men will be allowed to do whatever they want?' 'Didn't you know that already?' he said and laughed again. 'An intelligent man can do anything he likes as long as he's clever enough to get away with it. But you, you got caught after you killed, so today you have to rot in prison.' He's real swine to say that to my face; a few months ago I used to throw people like that out of the window. But now I just sit and listen to him. (Dostoevsky 1983, p. 788)
So when an atheist's solipsistic moral relativism collides with the merciless societal enforcement of a moral absolute embodied in the law, the atheist is left with few rational arguments and even fewer choices: resignation, exile, insanity, or death. -Q Querius
Querius and Mung, nice try, but avoiding the argument isn't debate. Since you can't explain why atheism (Darwinism) has not resulted in an increase in misogyny, as the OP claims is inevitable, I can only assume that you are conceding the point. Acartia_bogart
Q:
It’s an appeal to history as it ought to have been...
Excellent point! And one which also highlights the hypocrisy. History as it ought to have been would have excluded atheist regimes. If not, why not? Why do I get the feeling that atheists think they are morally superior to the rest of us rubes? Am I the only one who senses this constant struggle against the "moral superiority" of the atheists? Sounds like a great topic for an OP. How to be a Morally Superior Atheist. Mung
Mung, It's an appeal to history as it ought to have been---a historical fantasy carefully chosen and crafted. And the resulting disasters carefully rationalized. The irony that this is done in the name of science when it's the opposite of science. That's why 2014, what might be one of the coldest summers on record, doesn't result in any hysteria over global cooling. Speaking of violence against women, according to RAINN (https://www.rainn.org/statistics), 97% of rapists in the U.S. will never spend a day in jail. Oh, yes. We've come so far haven't we! -Q Querius
Am I the only one who thinks it odd when an atheist appeals to history in defense of their views, or even better, appeals to the Bible? Those nasty Christians and Jews. And that mean God. They ought not have been that way. Mung
K:" Ironically, you have again fallen into improper causal assertions by trying to suggest an ungrounded correlation-causation link." Where have I posited an ungrounded correlation-causation link? I was simply using historically observed facts to refute the ungrounded correlation-causation link implied by the OP. The OP claimed that atheism will lead to misogyny. If this is true, where is the evidence? Atheism and secularism have been on the increase for at least a century. Surely if the claim is true, we would also see an increase in misogyny. Acartia_bogart
This article is an eye-opener: https://bible.org/article/christianity-best-thing-ever-happened-women It looks as if Darwin was a throwback. Axel
A-b: Did you not see the causal timeline (backed up by historical evidence) laid out above? Ironically, you have again fallen into improper causal assertions by trying to suggest an ungrounded correlation-causation link. The specific point regarding Darwin was long since shown by direct authentic citation also. Back to a transition that needs attention. KF kairosfocus
But again, don’t let history get in the way of your intrinsic values.
The irony.
Don’t assume that atheists have never read the bible.
More irony. Mung
A_B writes, “Christianity has lasted 2000+ years without giving up misogyny.” Christianity isn’t misogynistic. “The bible was written at a time and in a society that was very patrearchal. It is only natural that the religions formed around it would tend to be male dominated. After all, it took 2000 years to have obey removed from the wife’s marriage vows.” The Bible does not condone misogynistic views of women. “Unless, of course you are homosexual, or a women who has sex before marriage, or a person of any other faith. Don’t assume that atheists have never read the bible.” I don’t assume that they haven’t. I do assume that they didn’t understand what they read, which is obvious when they try to interpret it. Your comments make this perfectly clear. The Bible does not state that women have been cursed by God (Genesis 3:14, Revelation 12:9). The consequences of original sin cause men to dominate women, which is noted at Genesis 3:16. Women were not created inferior to men (Genesis 1:27). Men and women were created with the ability to reflect God’s qualities of love, justice, and wisdom. While each sex is unique in emotional and physical makeup, they had the same rights before their Maker (Genesis 1:28-31). Eve is described as a helper and complement to Adam. The Mosaic Law also provided for women: respect and honor were due to one’s parents (Exodus 20:12), consideration was due to pregnant women (Exodus 21:22); women were seen as individuals in their own right and enjoyed a great deal of freedom (see Proverbs chapter 31). Women had the right to be educated (Deuteronomy 31:12, Nehemiah 8:2,8). The law also included detailed regulations regarding appropriate conduct among unmarried perons, showing respect for females (Leviticus 18:6,9). A man also had to take into account his wife’s physical and biological limitations (Leviticus 18:19). Women could receive inheritances just like males (Numbers 27:1-8). Also note that Jesus always treated women with respect and dignity. Barb
K: "A_b: FTR, correlation is not causation;" I believe that I said that. But when there is causation, you will see correlation. Since the claim here is that atheism and "Darwinism" lead to misogyny, I would expect to see an increase in Misogyny since Darwin's day. We have seen the exact opposite. You can argue that there are other factors at play, which there are, but surly a philosophy that can lead to Hitler and Stalin can keep women "in their place". But you have nothing other than an unsubstantiated claim. Acartia_bogart
A_b: FTR, correlation is not causation; there are underlying trends and the timeline will not bear the weight you would put on it. A check of modern history will show that civil rights movements began with the reformation era political Calvinism (which undermined the dominant influence of the inheritance of Rome on government and law) . . . cf. markers such as Vindiciae, Lex Rex, Locke, Blackstone, US DOI 1776 and its precursor the Dutch DOI of 1581, two years after Vindiciae was published under pseudonym of Duplessis-Mornay et al . . . and coalesced in the archetypal rights movement: anti slavery. From the wider impact of the Wesleyan revival, Victorian reformation, including of the status of women, as modern democracy emerged. A pivotal input was the Reformation principle of putting Scripture in the hands of the ordinary person and challenging authorities on their traditional views. The secularists were rather late to the party, had the sort of problems Q just cited, face the additional issues of nihilism and radical relativism, and latterly have hijacked rights movements into Alinskyite neomarxism-inspired radical revolution by subversion of institutions, law and governance. Hence the topsy-turvy situation we see today. KF kairosfocus
Q: The fact of willful ignoring of evidence itself speaks volumes. I got a transition hotting up -- a live on air political suicide y/day. KF kairosfocus
Querius "Despite, overwhelming evidence that Darwinism promoted misogyny and racism, this inconvenient truth is simply brushed off without resorting to any attempt at factual support" Or they lift their leg on the posted evidence, scratch the Earth in demonstration of their phony righteous indignation citing Godwin's Law and trot off with nose and tail in air. Only later to reappear and start up again with another time wasting diatribe they dreamed up in some far off parallel universe. DavidD
Kairosfocus, I hope you realize that a_b, by her own admission, does not always read anyone's replies under the theory that "life is too short." So any evidence presented, such as the following, is typically ignored.
“Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis.
Despite, overwhelming evidence that Darwinism promoted misogyny and racism, this inconvenient truth is simply brushed off without resorting to any attempt at factual support. The word frontalis refers to the frontal lobe of the brain, which scientists once thought was the evolutionary cognitive differentiation between humans and primates, involving behaviors such as problem solving, planning, and self control. In contrast, the word parietalis refers to the parietal lobe, which scientists once thought controlled the linguistic and visual functions. So, you can see how Darwin's prejudice against women was promoted through his pseudo-scientific justification, the same type of thing that Darwinists do today. I realize that you're responding FTR, but it seems kinda hopeless. -Q Querius
If "Darwinism" is so incompatible with the equal treatment of women, has anybody wondered why the increase in "Darwinism" corresponds with the increased women's movement? I know that correlation does not equal causation, but that only applies when the one variable is independent of the other. Acartia_bogart
A_b: Equality of person is not equality of moral worth of behaviour. The attempt to demand the latter in the name of the former is yet another instance of creeping radical relativism, amorality and nihilism driven by the distorting evolutionary materialist worldview dressed up in a lab coat. Amorality destroys values, and blinds us to the destructive and destabilising consequences of immorality. It may also lead to attempts to cast one moral principle improperly against another to create paralysis and confusion in the face of advancing decadence, on the agenda, might and manipulation make 'right.' (E.g. the current attempt to rehabilitate the demonically mad and ruthlessly cruel Nero in Nat Geog would be laughable, if its potential implications were not so grim.) KF PS: FTR, here is what the Bible explicitly says about our fundamental equality, in a pivotal text:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus [--> who is viewed as Eternal Logos-Creator-Sustainer of Cosmos and Redeemer] . . . [ESV]
kairosfocus
"Once again, you’re completely clueless. LOL" Querius, coming from you, that is a compliment. Acartia_bogart
"For God so loved the WORLD . . ." has NO exclusions. But there is only one door. Once again, you're completely clueless. LOL -Q Querius
"People who actually read the Bible know that it promotes the equality of people under God, " Unless, of course you are homosexual, or a women who has sex before marriage, or a person of any other faith. Don't assume that atheists have never read the bible. Acartia_bogart
"2) #1 is irrelevant to Mung’s point that universal condemnation of slavery is an example of human kind’s intrinsic value". As an intrinsic value, the condemnation of slavery seems to have failed miserably. I would think that something that was an intrinsic value would not take over 2000 years of recorded history, and who knows how many thousands of years before that, to be universally condemned? Assuming that it is universally condemned, even today. But again, don't let history get in the way of your intrinsic values. Acartia_bogart
And in case you missed it . . . -Q ;-) Querius
“Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis.
Darwin took the position that what we now call sexual dimorphism is a product of evolution, and that for the overwhelming majority of human evolutionary development, men were selected for superior strength and violence. Similarly, the “Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” that Darwin addressed seems to indicate that so-called “racial” differences were preserved by evolutionary processes under environmental pressure. As a result, social Darwinists became involved in issues that included * Forced sterilization * Euthanasia * Birth control for certain segments of society * Breeding the Übermensch * Strategies for reducing the population of aboriginals These people thought they were saving humankind from a genomic catastrophe! People who actually read the Bible know that it promotes the equality of people under God, and that “God is no respecter of persons.” As the Apostle Paul wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” -Q -Q Querius
Acartia_bogart claims to lack the prestidigitation skills attributed to him. Mung
Acartia_bogart
Mung, but I do find it strange that you require an imaginary outside force to give value to your life. It must be sad to be you.
I see you are trying to distract us from the rather telling point that you made when you confessed that you believe that humans have no more intrinsic value than earthworms. I used to think that you might be an intellectually honest (if rather stubborn) person, but if that were the case you would be trying to address this rather problematic aspect of your philosophical position rather than avoid it. StephenA
A_B, 1) You are correct about the causes of the Civil War. 2) #1 is irrelevant to Mung's point that universal condemnation of slavery is an example of human kind's intrinsic value. If you don't believe that humans have intrinsic value, then logically you don't have a problem with slavery. 3) Minor point, but having obey in marriage vows is hardly misogynistic. I would be willing to bet you anything that women who did have obey in their vows are more likely to be a) still married, b) happier, and c) more loved and respected by their husbands than women who didn't. And, btw, my wife of 26yrs agrees with me on this point. And told me to write it :). 4) If you think Christianity is misogynistic, I suggest you go read Proverbs 31. And Ephesians 5. And I Timothy 5. And Deuteronomy 14. No group is called out more to be loved in the Bible than women. Clearly you are accepting the feminist definition of the word misogynist (i.e. must be treated like a man). drc466
Mung, but I do find it strange that you require an imaginary outside force to give value to your life. It must be sad to be you. Acartia_bogart
Mung, if you think that the US civil war was fought over slavery and not power then you know less about history than you do about biology, which I didn't think was possible. You probably also think that the Second World War was fought by the allies because of the holocaust. Acartia_bogart
Forthcoming book: Misguided Lincoln: Wy humans have no inherent value and the whole emancipation proclamation thing was just a huge mistake. Mung
NEWS FLASH! American Civil war not really about slavery. States fought over right to buy and sell fish, cats, and earthworms. Mung
Arcatia_bogart:
BA77, I will be honest. I don’t think that humans have any “intrinsic” value. Or, at least, no more so than my cat, my fish or an earthworm.
Could you at least make up your mind about which it is? Otherwise you just sound incoherent. Humans have no intrisic value. Humans do have intrinsic value, but not much. Humans do have intrinsic value, and it could be al lot, depending on how much intrinsic value there is in your fish, your cat, or an earthworm. Are you claimg that all three of those have the same intrinsic value? I bet you neve feed your cat fish. Do you believe that selling fish, cats and earthworms is morally wrong? How about selling humans? You ok with that? Mung
A_b, Newton's vindictiveness has no bearing on his theories of planetary motion etc, just as it would have no bearing on Darwin theories on savages and women. ppolish
The bible was written at a time and in a society that was very patrearchal [sic]. It is only natural that the religions formed around it would tend to be male dominated. After all, it took 2000 years to have obey removed from the wife’s marriage vows.
It is evident your major is not history. Here you appear to assume - and I could be wrong - that present conditions are normative, and those of the past were aberrant. This is fundamentally anachronistic thinking. What you state is really too simple. All ancient religions originate from "patriarchal cultures". This is because all cultures were patriarchal until fairly recently. A good number of feminists would (convincingly) argue that all cultures remain so. Indeed, a patriarchal stance has been the distinctive feature of virtually all human societies; matriarchal societies exist more in fevered legend than in reality. Thus to say that religions originate from patriarchal cultures is no different from saying that religions originate from cultures that value motherhood - that is to say, cultures exhibiting basic human traits. Then we get into the correlation and causation fallacy; the fact that Christianity was counter-cultural in its context. Thus, to suggest that everything a religion teaches derives from its immediate context is as fallacious as suggesting that nothing a religion teaches is shaped by its context. What I find continually alarming is the mental gyrations of the committed evolutionist. Evolution would teach that male domination is a fact of nature. It is seen in most mammalian species; which suggests that natural selection actively favours this inter-gender imbalance in order to better sustain species. Yet, the committed evolutionist denies that this is a good thing when applied to human beings. Indeed, wants to overturn such an arrangement. This is something that amazes me. The desire on the part of evolutionists to contain evolution in the past, and to limit it to change within and between species in the purely biological world. The logical application of evolution to other facets of human behaviour and living are always shied away from. "This far, and no further!" appears to be the operating dictum. And so we see irrational tensions between positions of gender-equality and affirmations of evolution. If evolution is true, then it is really true and true in all facets of human existence. To deny this is to empty the theory of credibility and expose the self-serving nature of it. CalvinsBulldog
Probably not. Christianity has lasted 2000+ years without giving up misogyny.
This is a comment that does not evince much desire to fairly represent the beliefs of others, or indeed, history itself. The key difference - which you are seemingly not recognising - is that misogyny is incompatible with true and biblical Christianity which presents women as possessing equal dignity with men; indeed, God in human form redeems women as he does men, and calls both into his kingdom. In contradistinction, misogynist views are perfectly compatible with a Darwinian perspective. Under the Darwinian view, Women have little value apart from their capacity to attract and retain mates, and produce healthy offspring. Even as receptacles of genetic information, they are selected for by men. CalvinsBulldog
Ppolish:"A_b, any misogyny in Christianity did not come from Jesus. While Darwin’s views of women are “dated”, the view of Jesus is Timeless. Is/Was/WillBe" I never stated that Jesus said anything about it. And claiming that atheists and evolutionists hang on every word spoken and written by Darwin us simply false. Yes, by today's standards Darwin would be considered misogynistic. But so would almost every male in the western world at that time. Newton was paranoid and vindictive, but I don't hear anyone questioning his theories based on this. The bible was written at a time and in a society that was very patrearchal. It is only natural that the religions formed around it would tend to be male dominated. After all, it took 2000 years to have obey removed from the wife's marriage vows. Acartia_bogart
A_b, any misogyny in Christianity did not come from Jesus. While Darwin's views of women are "dated", the view of Jesus is Timeless. Is/Was/WillBe http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus'_interactions_with_women ppolish
ab:
"I will be honest. I don’t think that humans have any “intrinsic” value. Or, at least, no more so than my cat, my fish or an earthworm."
as to being honest to your atheistic worldview, so far so good,,, but then immediately after that you state,,,
"In my world view, and I don’t claim to speak for anyone else, value and meaning are what you bring to your life through your goals and actions, not something that is promised by a higher power."
But you just said that 'what you bring to your life', in terms of value and meaning, is that you have the intrinsic value and meaning of an 'earthworm'.,,, To check your consistency in this matter, if someone cut you up and used you for fish bait,, would you have any 'moral' qualms with that? After all that is what is normally done with earthworms. supplemental note: Darwinism has had, and continues to have, a tremendously negative impact on society (including science),, a few notes in that regards
How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm The Eugenic Impulse By Nathaniel Comfort - Nov. 12, 2012 Excerpt: The ultimate ideal sought," wrote Harvey Ernest Jordan in 1912, "is a perfect society constituted of perfect individuals." Jordan, who would later be dean of medicine at the University of Virginia, was speaking to the importance of eugenics in medicine—­a subject that might seem tasteless and obsolete today. Yet nearly a century later, in 2008, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the biomedical research institute on Long Island's north shore, published a book titled Davenport's Dream, which shows that eugenic visions persist. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Eugenic-Impulse/135612/ The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution - John West, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU Abortion Statistics http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/18/abortion-statistics/ At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA
bornagain77
BA77, I will be honest. I don't think that humans have any "intrinsic" value. Or, at least, no more so than my cat, my fish or an earthworm. BA77: "on a Darwinian worldview, are women to be treated as anything other than merely sexual objects?,,," First off, I don't really know what you mean by a Darwinian world view. Nobody is proposing that our societies be modelled around our current understanding of evolution. But, regardless, evolution does not necessitate that women be sexual objects. There are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom where women rule. For example, I wouldn't want to be a male angler fish, or a male praying mantis. In my world view, and I don't claim to speak for anyone else, value and meaning are what you bring to your life through your goals and actions, not something that is promised by a higher power. Acartia_bogart
@ba Nailed it right on the head. That nihilism, especially the moral nihilism, implied by atheism, that shear inability to even affirm that objective moral values and duties exist on atheism, never mind the epistemological search for what they are, is the greatest and will always be the greatest Achilles heal to getting the thinking person considering it to adopt it. VunderGuy
But AB, not that you will be honest, but for the reader, exactly how, on a Darwinian worldview, are women to be treated as anything other than merely sexual objects?,,, How exactly does one go about establishing true moral worth and value for a person in a worldview that maintains successful reproduction is primary and transcendent values are illusory?? The materialistic philosophy has an extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans in the first place,,, If materialism were true, on today's market, humans would be 'valued' at approx. 1 dollar,,,
How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp
Whereas Theism, particularly Christianity, has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him:
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? MercyMe – Beautiful - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA
supplemental notes:
The Biology of the Second Reich - video http://darwintohitler.com/ “The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.” - Adolf Hitler http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/charles-darwin-and-world-war-i/ "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." - Jesus Christ - The War on Humans - new mini-documentary - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWcEYYj_-rg
bornagain77
"Science writer Mark Oppenheimer asks if misogyny will bring down the atheist movement" Probably not. Christianity has lasted 2000+ years without giving up misogyny. Acartia_bogart
Of note: She (a science writer) said she was a creationist. Then the firestorm began. - December 27, 2013 Excerpt: Q: What adjectives would you use to describe the reaction? Angry, defensive, fearful, histrionic, sometimes misogynistic, hazing. Something more than an academic argument about cosmology and consciousness was at stake.,,, http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2013/12/she_said_she_was_a_creationist.html But such a unreasonable reaction from atheists to her change of mind is hardly surprising to ID advocates.,,, Hatred and slander seem to be two of the primary 'scientific' evidences presented for Darwinism on the internet when Darwinists feel threatened. bornagain77
Charles Darwin himself certainly did not have an 'elevated' view of women:
"Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued - “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective. As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/08/darwin-zealots-reign-of-terror/
Of course many atheists will claim that, as with Darwin's prejudice against blacks, that that attitude of Darwin against women was just a relic of an unenlightened past. But, in an evolutionary scenario, exactly how can women ever be seen as anything other than sexual objects?
Pastor Blasts Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition for Promoting 'Women as Sexual Objects' - March 14, 2014 Excerpt: "This attitude not only does not contribute to the health and welfare of girls and women, but it condones and even encourages men and boys to treat women as mere instruments of sexual pleasure," wrote Haller on her blog last month. http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-blasts-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-edition-for-promoting-women-as-sexual-objects-116152/
i.e. , since successful reproduction is all that matters in an evolutionary scenario, how can a Darwinist truly condemn such morally unhealthy sexuality, that is used in advertising all the time, as wrong. Morality simply has no basis in materialism! Moreover, Jesus, contrary what many people believe, instead of 'shackling women', greatly elevated the status and respect of women in society!
Christianity: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Women Excerpt: Jesus’ treatment of women was very different: The extremely low status that the Greek, Roman, and Jewish woman had for centuries was radically affected by the appearance of Jesus Christ. His actions and teachings raised the status of women to new heights, often to the consternation and dismay of his friends and enemies. By word and deed, he went against the ancient, taken-for-granted beliefs and practices that defined woman as socially, intellectually, and spiritually inferior. The humane and respectful way Jesus treated and responded to the Samaritan woman [at the well] (recorded in John 4) may not appear unusual to readers in today’s Western culture. Yet what he did was extremely unusual, even radical. He ignored the Jewish anti-Samaritan prejudices along with prevailing view that saw women as inferior beings.{6} https://bible.org/article/christianity-best-thing-ever-happened-women
bornagain77

Leave a Reply