A Case of Bad Timing

_{Barry Arrington

January 14, 2022

Intelligent Design}

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

WARNING! The video linked here is extremely disturbing.

Four days ago Alexis Avila, a woman in New Mexico, had a baby. She put the baby in a garbage bag and threw him in a dumpster. She is being charged with attempted murder. The good news is that a passerby found the baby (umbilical cord still attached) still alive and called 911. The medics were able to save his life.

Ms. Avila could have gone to an abortionist a couple of hours earlier and had her baby chopped into pieces in utero. The abortionist could have then removed the pieces, put them in the same garbage bag and thrown it in the same dumpster. In that case, Ms. Avila would have committed no crime. Indeed, pro-abortion radicals would be applauding her “brave” decision to exercise her constitutional “right” to kill her baby in her womb.

Same woman, same baby, same garbage bag, same dumpster. Two hours difference would have resulted in a radically different legal outcome for Ms. Avila. American abortion law is insane and morally grotesque.

Comments

Here, more https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/lfp-48m-the-legitimate-authority-of-knowable-moral-truth-in-service-to-justice-thriving-and-prudence/kairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Sev, and thereby hangs the fatal error of relativising and undermining knowable, warranted, objective moral truth reducing it to clash of opinions backed by power. Justice evaporates. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington/45
overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil
Suppose the overwhelming majority regarded dumping newborns in dumpsters as good. Would it then be good?
I'm sorry, I must have skimmed over this. Presumably, it would be good in the minds of the majority who approved of it. It would not be a good thing from my perspective.Seversky_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Well actually ChuckyD, contrary to your usual denial of evidence that is sitting right in front of you, (i.e. willful blindness), altruistic behavior has been recognized as being a severe problem for Darwin's "ANTI-moral" theory for a very long time. Darwin himself admitted as much.
Cell death - (Cornelius Hunter; PhD - Biophysics) Excerpt: According to evolutionary theory, biological variation that supports or enhances reproduction will increase in future generations—a process known as natural selection. The corollary to this is that biological variation that degrades reproduction will not be selected for. Clearly, natural selection could not result in destructive behavior. Here are two representative statements from Origins: "we may feel sure that any [biological] variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. (Darwin, 63)" "Natural selection will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. (Darwin, 162-3)" But are not examples of such “injurious” behavior obvious? When the rattlesnake rattles its tail, is this not injurious to its hunt for food, and ultimately to its reproductive chances? Darwin argued that this and other such examples are signals to frighten away enemies, not warn the intended prey. But today we have many examples of injurious behavior that falsify Darwin’s prediction that natural selection “will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being.” In bacteria, for example, phenomenally complicated mechanisms carefully and precisely destroy the individual. Clearly, this suicide mechanism is more injurious than beneficial to the bacteria’s future prospects.,, https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/cell-death Altruism - (Cornelius Hunter; PhD - Biophysics) Conclusions Darwin’s theory of evolution led him to several expectations and predictions, regarding behavior in general, and altruism in particular. We now know those predictions to be false. Furthermore, in order to explain (away) many of the behaviors we find in biology, evolutionists have had to add substantial serendipity to their theory. The list of events that must have occurred to explain how evolution produced what we observe is incredible and the theory has become absurdly complex. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/altruism
bornagain77_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 53
In short, multicellular life would not even exist in the first place if life was not, in fact, based upon the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice.
Anthropomorphism on steroids. You've really jumped the shark on this one...chuckdarwin_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Moreover, to go even further in falsifying the claim from Darwinists that life is the result of 'ANTI-moral' "Death as the Creator" forces, I will point out that for multicellular life to even exist in the first place, then multicellular life itself MUST be based on altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality. Specifically, multicellular life would not exist if ‘apoptosis’ did not exist,,,, ‘apoptosis’ means programmed cell death, and is a necessary and essential part of embryological development for all multicellular organisms.
Apoptosis in Embryonic Development Excerpt: As cells rapidly proliferate during development, some of them undergo apoptosis, which is necessary for many stages in development, including neural development, reduction in egg cells (oocytes) at birth, as well as the shaping of fingers and,, organs in humans and other animals. Sydney Brenner, H. Robert Horvitz, and John E. Sulston received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for their work on the genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/apoptosis-embryonic-development
In short, multicellular life would not even exist in the first place if life was not, in fact, based upon the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice.
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
Thus in conclusion, Darwinists may falsely imagine that any conception of objective morality that we may have for life is merely a subjective, man-made, illusion, but the reality of the situation is that if (altruistic) morality did not first exist in some objectively real and meaningful sense in the first place then multicellular life itself would not even be possible. Given all these lines of empirical evidence falsifying the 'red in tooth and claw' presupposition of Darwinists, the real mystery is "why in blue blazes are Darwinists so dogmatically, even insanely, committed to falsely believing that we live in a "Death as the Creator" universe?" In my honest opinion, the profound mysteries of quantum mechanics pale in comparison to that "Death as the Creator" preference that Darwinists have.
Proverbs 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate me love death.
bornagain77_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Darwinists hold that any conception of objective morality that we may have for life is merely a subjective, man-made, illusion. The reality of the situation, they tell us repeatedly, is that life is the result of blind physical forces which are pitilessly indifferent to morality.
“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, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
In fact, as pointed out previously in this thread, Darwinists hold that not only is life the result of forces which are not only pitilessly indifferent to morality, but they, in reality, hold that life is the result of "red in tooth and claw", 'Death as the Creator", forces which are diametrically opposed to morality, i.e. forces that are "ANTI-moral".
"I think “nature red in tooth and claw” sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably." - Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene (1976) How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? John G. West – January 11, 2022 Excerpt: Death as the Creator A third big idea fueled by Darwin’s theory is that the engine of progress in the history of life is mass death. Instead of believing that the remarkable features of humans and other living things reflect the intelligent design of a master artist, Darwin portrayed death and destruction as our ultimate creator. As he wrote at the end of his most famous work: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.” https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/ “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species – 1861, page 266
The trouble for Darwinists holding and/or imagining that life is the solely the result of merciless "ANTI-moral", i.e. "Death as the Creator", forces is that life is not overtly ‘red in tooth and claw’ in its overall character. Which is to say that the reality of life does not match Darwinian expectations for life. For instance, Darwin himself held that “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66 The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308
Yet, directly contrary to Darwin's 'logic' of natural selection, "Both plants and animals have built-in programs for avoiding overexploitation of their resources,,"
Red in tooth and claw Excerpt: The phrase ‘red in tooth and claw’ was coined in 1849 by Lord Tennyson, but quickly taken up to support the idea that evolution occurred by ‘natural selection’ in a very violent world.,,, (Yet) In a restricted area such as an island, wolves limit their population size when the deer population goes down.,,, Plants also do not proliferate in a field to the point where they become overcrowded. They do not engage in a “struggle for existence” for natural selection to preserve those that pass the survival test and destroy those that don’t. Plants tend to control their populations by sensing the density of the planting. When the growth is dense, plants produce less seeds; when growth is thin, they produce more seeds. Both plants and animals have built-in programs for avoiding overexploitation of their resources –,,, So ‘nature’ may seem to be violent at times – ‘red in tooth and claw’ – but not to the level required required by the theory of evolution. Population sizes of both animals and plants appear to be self-regulating, matching available resources. Evidence, surely, of intelligent design?,,, https://the1way.net/reasonstobelieve/red-in-tooth-and-claw/
Moreover, instead of bacteria eating us, as would be expected under the 'red in tooth and claw' assumption of Darwinists,
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
,,, instead of bacteria eating us, as would be expected under the 'red in tooth and claw' assumption of Darwinists, we instead find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. For instance, the following researchers said that they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the mutual cooperation that they had found amongst bacteria. They even went so far as to state, ,,, “Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html
And as the following study found, “‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole.”
Friendly bacteria collaborate to survive – 10 October 2019 Excerpt: New microbial research at the University of Copenhagen suggests that ‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole. The discovery is a major step towards understanding complex bacteria interactions and the development of new treatment models for a wide range of human diseases and new green technologies. https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2019/10/friendly-bacteria-collaborate-to-survive/
Again, this ‘survival of the friendliest’ is, morally and scientifically speaking, directly contrary to Charles Darwin’s primary ‘one general law’ of his theory which holds “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species - ibid
If Darwin's theory were a real, testable, science, instead of being, basically, a blind faith religion for atheists, this should count as yet another direct falsification of a core presupposition of Darwin's theory. Also of note:
"Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. " - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival,, http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm
Moreover, to dive a little bit deeper into the molecular level of life, the ‘scientific/empirical’ falsification of the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ "ANTI-morality" occurs at the molecular level of life to. Richard Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but ‘selfish’ as Dawkins himself had imagined. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in an extensive holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (which is the very antithesis of Richard Dawkins’s entire ‘selfish gene’ concept).
What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. - per quanta magazine
Such extensive, even astonishing, ‘holistic cooperation’ between genes is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned genes to be. And again, should count as yet another powerful falsification of a core Darwinian presupposition.bornagain77_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

LCD http://www.columbia.edu/~ey2172/orwell.html 1984's Winston Smith speaks . . .kairosfocus_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Over in L&FP 48a, regarding a new OP 48i: Today’s addition L&FP, 48i: Dallas Willard on the legitimate authority of knowledge (vs the radical narrative of oppression) https://uncommondescent.com/education/lfp-48i-dallas-willard-on-the-legitimate-authority-of-knowledge-vs-the-radical-narrative-of-oppression/kairosfocus_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington
Sev overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil
Suppose the overwhelming majority regarded dumping newborns in dumpsters as good. Would it then be good?
Orwell: To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, Seversky: I'm busy will talk about later... :)))Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

PPS: Sev, I note discomfort on how this exchange developed:
[KF:] PS, do you have rights that demand justice, starting with life? [Sev:] I believe I should and, fortunately, most Western states largely agree, at least in principle.
The issue of rights is not an issue of a cluster of blind men unable to find objective, comprehensive truth so that project towards a body of knowledge must be abandoned with serious indictments as oppressive, arrogant etc. The matter pivots on the civil peace of justice, due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. Where, as a rights claim carries a binding expectation of correlative freedoms on one's part and equally correlative duties on the part of others, this is a profound issue on right conduct and how such delimits freedoms. For instance, no one may justly claim or imply or impose that the other sully and taint conscience by passive or active enabling in evils and wrongs. Something as seemingly simple as imposing lying through doublethink tactics counts. I note here, Orwell:
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.
kairosfocus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

EDTA, recall, the significance of a ruthless totalitarian state, including the fate of the White Rose martyrs as a capital example of the spiral of silencing. KFkairosfocus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Sev, in a race that is error prone and quarrelsome, diversity of views or alleged consensus is not a good sign that there is not objective knowable warranted truth regarding duty to right conduct, virtue etc. Besides, truth does not reside in imperatives but in related propositions that may -- or may fail to -- accurately describe states of affairs, which are abstract. Truth is declarative. For example, see 35 above on the relativist thesis; which inter alia clarifies what a moral proposition is, what makes it a moral proposition and what it would require to be generally knowable and warranted, which implies credible truth on a responsible reliable basis . . . and yes that brings up branch on which we sit and the need for definitions of knowledge to include the weak (defeasible but on grounds evidently reliable) sense common in science, history, practical affairs etc. Likewise, note too at 40 for Dallas Willard on the nature of knowledge and the authority/responsibility it confers. (I intend to speak to that a bit further.) KF PS, on theology and related study of the idea of God in phil, I suggest restraint on characterisations; formulations, to be sound, require a careful deeply informed exactitude that is balanced and nuanced, Even where phrasing may look simple, this must embrace how easily a seemingly small error or imprecision can lead to a massive divergence much as a watershed line acts in geography. Compare definition of continuum in Mathematics. For example, the issue of a root of reality that is inherently good, utterly wise, creator, necessary being and maximally great is a summary of huge concepts with extreme significance. The Old Covenant, for example, was not viewed as erroneous to be corrected but prophetic-developmental and as stages towards further fulfillment of a programme of redemptive transformation itself still in progress towards culmination.kairosfocus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Sev
overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil
Suppose the overwhelming majority regarded dumping newborns in dumpsters as good. Would it then be good?Barry Arrington_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Sev,
Once the Nazis had seized control of the German state, Hitler was the tyrant. The majority were neither consulted nor polled to discover whether they approved or disapproved of The Final Solution.
I thought that also, but I'm currently reading "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust", by Danial Jonah Goldhaven, which is making the case that pretty much everyone in Germany knew that genocide was going on. Clearly no large segment of the population fought it; most Germans were stridently anti-Semitic before Hitler came along. He documents things pretty well, and it may cause me to rethink my position on this question.EDTA_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington/24
You ask that question as if the answer would make a difference. Are we supposed to say, “Oh, she had a traumatic experience, so let’s give her a pass for putting a baby in a garbage bag and throwing him in a dumpster”?
No, certainly not, on its face this was a shocking act but due diligence requires that we try to ascertain all the facts of this case before reaching a judgement, in case there are any extenuating circumstances we should take into consideration.
BTW Sev. Chuck dodged this question so I will ask you. Is it objectively evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster or is it just your subjective preference not to do so? And if it is the latter, why should we care what your subjective preference is?
I don't believe in objective evil. When an individual calls certain behaviors "evil" they're giving their subjective opinion of those acts. If it was just me that thought dumping a newborn in a dumpster was evil then it would count for very little as I'm just one amongst millions. However if, as I think most of us believe to be the case, the overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil, does it really matter whether the evil is objective or a matter of intersubjective agreement?Seversky_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus/12
Seversky, precisely, the inference that moral values are in effect accidents of conditioning and that there are no objective moral truths is driven by a priori evolutionary materialism and/or accommodation to it, not by the rhetorical distractor of diversity of views among an error prone race.
Yes, we are an error-prone species. As long as we can accept that, learn from our mistakes and try to do better subsequently, isn't that the best we can do? I have given my reasons for holding that moral prescriptions can be neither true nor false. How does positing an objective morality get around that? How do we know an objective morality does not itself embody errors? How do we know its source? If you are proposing the Christian God as the author, need I remind you that, according to the Bible, it was He who felt it necessary to provide a New Covenant, thereby conceding that the original was in error, something of which the greatest of all beings should not be capable?
So, if a certain community in Germany c 1933 on decides Poles, Jews, Russians, Gypsies etc are inferior life unworthy of life it is merely a matter of who wins the war not right to life. There was no higher built in law for the Nuremberg Courts to appeal to, it was all a matter of who wins subjects who loses to show trials then executes them as they please never mind all that stuff about evidence and justice.
The risk of "the tyranny of the majority" has long been recognized as a flaw in the concept of a democracy. An obvious solution is the enactment of an agreed set of fundamental individual rights that are ring-fenced against the eddies and currents of transient political opinion such that they cannot easily be abridged or struck down by a simple majority. The Founding fathers recognized this when they embodied the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The Holocaust in Nazi Germany, I would argue, is not an example of the tyranny of the majority. Once the Nazis had seized control of the German state, Hitler was the tyrant. The majority were neither consulted nor polled to discover whether they approved or disapproved of The Final Solution.
PS, do you have rights that demand justice, starting with life?
I believe I should and, fortunately, most Western states largely agree, at least in principle.Seversky_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

F/N: Collins Dictionary: ontology (?n?t?l?d??) n 1. (Philosophy) philosophy the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being epistemology (??p?st??m?l?d??) n (Philosophy) the theory of knowledge, esp the critical study of its validity, methods, and scope [C19: from Greek epist?m? knowledge] KFkairosfocus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

PPS: On significance of moral truth and its knowability, I note Dallas Willard:
What is the disappearance of moral knowledge? It is the social reality that the knowledge institutions (primarily the universities, but also the “churches”) of our society do not presume to offer knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice to the public. It is not a part of “testable” cognitive content of any recognized area of scholarship or practice . . . . What is knowledge and what does it do? Knowledge is the capacity to represent something as it is, on an appropriate basis of thought and experience. It and it alone confers the right and perhaps the responsibility to act, direct action, formulate policy and supervise its implementation, and teach. This helps us see what disappears along with “moral knowledge.” [–> sounds familiar?]
[Kindly cf here]kairosfocus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

JVL, what we can for good reason claim to know on a warrant and how that comes to be are materially different. I can know for good reason there is a red ball on a table without knowing how such balls come to be or to be on the table. As for finding logic compelling, but of course; people are trying to view logic through rhetorical spectacles. Fail. (See here on the disappearance of logic.) KF PS, it is you who were raising the ontology. And, the roots of conscience and of morally governed creatures with such a seemingly strange characteristic are a supremely important consideration as to the nature of reality. Materialisms [and other monisms], of course, are non-viable starting out the gate.kairosfocus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: However, the epistemology of warrant (especially involving branch on which we sit pervasive first principles and reductios on attempted denials etc) is not the ontology of sourcing, the wellsprings of the good, the true, the beautiful etc. Perhaps . . . if I understand you, which is under contention. But, as usual, I think you miss that many, many people on this planet do not consider your 'logic' binding and compulsive. Many of us think it's quite possible and plausible that there is not creator god. We may be wrong BUT, have you considered, that you might be wrong? In the end, we all do agree on 'the golden rule', so why are we arguing about where it came from? I'm happy to set that issue aside and move on, operating under that basic and agreed upon principle. What say you?JVL_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

JVL no belief in God is necessary.
You declare that certain beliefs are not necessary but your declaration is in itself a belief. Your belief that "no belief in God is necessary" affirm and accept that unnecessary beliefs do exist(and belief in God is one of them). Now after you told us that unnecessary beliefs exist please make the case of your belief(=no belief in God is necessary) proving that is necessary and don't belong in the same set of unnecessary beliefs (as belief in God). PS: Funny how atheists think their beliefs are not beliefs but "scientific facts" :)))Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Thanks KF at 34. Excellent reply to JVL. Better than I could have said it myself. But to add just a bit more in refutation of JVL. It is not just that JVL's Darwinian worldview is completely amoral, (shoot Adam Sedgewick scolded Charles Darwin himself about that in 1859, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.")
From Adam Sedgwick - 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,," https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
No, it is not just that JVL's Darwinian worldview is completely amoral, (blind, pitiless, indifference), it is that JVL's Darwinian worldview is ANTI-moral. Moreover, this ANTI-morality is built into the very foundation of Darwin's theory as 'one general law'. Darwin himself put the one defining ‘general law’ of his theory like this, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species - 1861, page 266
And here is Charles Darwin working the 'one general law' of his theory out in a little more detail,
At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” Charles Darwin,The Descent of Man pg. 201, published in 1871:
As should be obvious to everyone who is not a complete psychopath, not only are “let the strongest live and the weakest die”, and "almost certainly exterminate", amoral statements, (i.e. pitilessly indifferent), but those statements are, in fact, completely ANTI-moral statements. Adolf Hitler himself, (whom I think even atheists will agree was a psychopath of the first order), directly echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
“A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248
As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak.
Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” – Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15
Hitler was hardly the only genocidal maniac who based his 'ANTI-morality' on Darwinian evolution. In fact all the leading Atheistic Tyrants of the communist regimes of the 20th century, (who murdered tens of millions of their own people),,, all those tyrants based their murderous political ideologies on Darwin’s theory and the ‘ANTI-morality’ inherent therein.
Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their Atheistic ideology – July 2020 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831
Thus although JVL may whistle in the dark and try to pretend as if it is no big deal that he cannot ground objective morality within his Darwinian worldview, the fact of the matter is that 'ANTI-morality' is built into the very foundation of his theory as 'one general law', and that "ANTI-morality' that is built into the very foundation of his Darwinian theory as 'one general law' has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man. I hardly consider it hyperbolic to state that the blood of over 200 million victims cry out to God for justice against Darwin's murderous ideology.
Chairman MAO: Genocide Master (Black Book of Communism) “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” - ibid from post 18 How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? John G. West – January 11, 2022 Excerpt: Death as the Creator A third big idea fueled by Darwin’s theory is that the engine of progress in the history of life is mass death. Instead of believing that the remarkable features of humans and other living things reflect the intelligent design of a master artist, Darwin portrayed death and destruction as our ultimate creator. As he wrote at the end of his most famous work: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.” https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/
Supplemental note:
Moreover, not only is Darwinian morality at ‘war’ with Christian morality, but it also turns out that Darwinian morality is at ‘war’ with the science itself. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738586
bornagain77_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

PS: On objective moral truth:
Let a proposition be represented by x M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [--> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged] It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1
[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: "[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc -- c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made." This IMPLIES the CR Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. He continues, "These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . "]
However, the subject of S is M, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [--> reductio ad absurdum] ++++++++++ ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*M = 1 [condensing not of not] where, M [moral truth claim] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false. The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.
kairosfocus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

JVL, It would be amusing if it weren't sad. Okay, let's pick up a few points of note: >>you missed or intentionally skipped over part of the reference I provided, i.e. no belief in God is necessary. Something can be objective but not Bible based.>> - at least you concede the possibility of objective, knowable moral truth. - However, the epistemology of warrant (especially involving branch on which we sit pervasive first principles and reductios on attempted denials etc) is not the ontology of sourcing, the wellsprings of the good, the true, the beautiful etc. - BA77 commented "I am also aware that your atheistic Darwinian worldview provides no basis whatsoever for any sort of objective morality" and he provided a clip from Dawkins that is originally River out of Eden [as he cited, IIRC, p. 8], though there are many other sources on the point from major spokesmen for evolutionary materialistic scientism:
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, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
- in short, a materialistic, evolutionary ontology has always been amoral and an opening for nihilism. That was noted 2360 years ago by Plato in The Laws, Bk X, a text that was recently ill advisedly dismissed as irrelevant by one of our objectors. - Further to which, BA77 had just noted:
I am aware that other religions recognize the golden rule. (it is implicit in our God given moral intuition [--> aka conscience], so I expect it to be recognized by other religions, and I even expect it to be recognized by atheists such as yourself)
- this of course is a reference to branch on which we sit, pervasive first duties that we can reasonably expect many people in various times and places to recognise as built in moral government expressed in intelligible principles. Based on the Roman Stoic and statesman Cicero, I have repeatedly highlighted seven first duties of reason:
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
- these, as BA77 noted, are generic, and it is almost amusing to see your retort: >>Your religion is not even the only one that has proposed moral standards you ascribe to. Some of them long before Christ was born. Maybe you should really try to understand other peoples’ point of view.>> - But, he did, at the outset of his remarks. - As to just what the Christian Faith, in foundational theological writings, says on the subject, we note:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law [of Moses] requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
- Here, we see that conscience is a common gift and where sound testifies to built in moral government, which the Christian faith EXPECTS to find as a common property of the diverse people groups of our world, across space and time. - So, it is not a point against that faith when what it expects is commonplace. - There is, however, a second expectation, moral struggle and intellectual conflict within the person and among people. So we can see that with an error-prone and sometimes quarrelsome race, there will be diverse opinions and struggles, errors and entrenched evils. - But in the midst of contentions, the first principles will stand out due to their self-evident, pervasive nature. >>You think you’ve won the moral argument because you think yours is the only possible solution.>> - The solution is that a core of moral government is self-evident, intelligible, warranted, objective, true, and that it will be subjected to contentions notwithstanding. - Further to which, such moral government is rooted in our creation, is partly constitutive of our nature as conscience attests. Where, at our best we struggle to consistently acknowledge and live up to that core -- which does not excuse abandoning the effort. - This now points to the ontological issue. - For, what sort of root of reality can account for creatures like that? Surely, post Hume and post Euthyphro we know that the IS-OUGHT GAP can only be bridged in the root of reality. - Anywhere after that and ought becomes groundless, so, we have a bill of requisites that the root of reality must meet: adequate cause of a fine tuned cosmos with life forms exhibiting abundant further signs of design AND able to be the ground of moral government. - That means:
1: Finitely remote, necessary [so, beginningless] being with capability to design, effect and sustain a vast cosmos 2: Inherent goodness so there is no gap between the is and the ought 3: Utterly wise, so goodness is thoroughly informed by sound understanding.
- The candidate to beat is a familiar figure, the creator-God of ethical theism. - All of this is utterly generic. - What is peculiar to the Christian faith, then, is not ethical theism, it is redemption on a history involving fulfillment of prophecy of messiah, tied to the growing impact of the gospel which answers to our core moral struggle, the issue of radical sin. - And, redemption on that sure word of fulfilled prophecy is unique and powerful; as millions of the redeemed and transformed -- never mind dismissive cynicism and abundant bitter rhetoric -- attest.. KFkairosfocus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

JVL @ 26: "I have apologised." JVL @ "I don’t think making an honest mistake is something you need to apologise for." I understand JVL. Being a materialist means never having to say you are sorry. It also means affirming something and simultaneously denying it is A-OK. Move along.Barry Arrington_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Run Chuck RunBarry Arrington_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 22 Mr. Arrington--how about this, you answer my question (because I asked first) then I will address your question about throwing babies into dumpsters? Somehow, though, my cognitively dissonant brain tells me that that is not your real agenda. What you really want to do is pick a fight about abortion, which I don't do because (a) it really doesn't interest me that much and (b) I come to this blog to debate evolution and ID, not intractable political and moral issues.chuckdarwin_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: I am also aware that your atheistic Darwinian worldview provides no basis whatsoever for any sort of objective morality. Then you missed or intentionally skipped over part of the reference I provided, i.e. no belief in God is necessary. Something can be objective but not Bible based. You do understand that simple point do you not? I understand that it's vital for you to push that point all the time. i.e. In order for you to ‘moralize’ to Barry, you, as an atheist, are forced to ‘steal’ from some other religion, be it Christianity or whatever, since you cannot ‘moralize’ from your own atheistic Darwinian religion. Only if you think that morals can only come from some undefined and undetected moral source. If you don't think that way then there are other alternatives. What if everyone, even those with religious leanings, respect and understand the basic 'do under others . . . ' rule? What if it's just true? You think you've won the moral argument because you think yours is the only possible solution. But it isn't. Your religion is not even the only one that has proposed moral standards you ascribe to. Some of them long before Christ was born. Maybe you should really try to understand other peoples' point of view.JVL_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Please point out where you did that. I must have missed it. I admitted I was incorrect and you were correct. Because I made the mistake without malice or in some attempt to cast aspersions on you I didn't feel the need to grovel or beg forgiveness. I don't think making an honest mistake is something you need to apologise for. I didn't do it intentionally. The fact that it was counter to what you said was not me trying to take you down a peg. I assumed that you too had made an error. But it was me that made the error and I have acknowledged that.JVL_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply