1. You admitted during the debate you don’t know where human consciousness and intelligence comes from, yet several times you also urged the audience to maintain your viewpoint’s current status quo dominance of the culture for the good of society.
But if you don’t know where the consciousness and intelligence comes from that guides human affairs in the first place, how do you know that what your advocating for is what’s best for society? How do you know whether or not the source of your belief system is a benevolent or malevolent force? Not to mention if we don’t know where intelligence comes from, how do we even know we know what benevolent and malevolent means? If what you believe has led to some good in human society, how do you know that believing the God of the Bible is the source of consciousness and intelligence wouldn’t make for an even better society?
If you don’t know where consciousness or intelligence comes from, when do you know you’re right and when do you know you’re wrong? Furthermore, how do you know whether or not everything you believe is really a lie? Perhaps we don’t even exist, and you’re unconscious now like in the Matrix, and what you think is reality is not? More.
Scientism, the point of view that Nye, should espouse, if he knows what is good for him in he company he keeps, holds that we have evolved so as not to understand that we are unconscious beings; that is just an illusion that spreads our selfish genes, as are all moral insights and beliefs about free will.
The view that everyone’s consciousness is an illusion doesn’t mean that no one rules; it means that whoever gets to the top does. Period. Scientism is to science what egotism is to ego.
And if Nye, or readers, have any doubts about that, recall that new research claims little or no difference between humans and animals.
That used to be a joke, a satirist’s point. Now it’s not. Which matters for civil liberties and a number of other questions.
The interesting thing is, as I have been recording in Science Fictions, the underlying naturalism (materialism) is actually seriously corroding the sciences. The multiverse is, of course, a good example of the trend, so is origin of life.
– O’Leary for News
See also: Is there a good reason to believe that life’s origin must be a fully natural event?
Follow UD News at Twitter!