Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: Recognizing Providence in the History of Life Is a Hint About Our Own Lives

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An arena of fine-tuning we can all appreciate, not quantitatively but qualitatively, is how in most events of our lives, things go right, when there are so many more ways that they could go wrong. Just consider how most of the time we arrive safely to where we’re going when we take a trip by car, even in rush-hour traffic. Or, how electricity keeps flowing to our homes, without which we’d be pushed quickly into survival mode. Or how our sense of balance facilitates efficient movement of our physical bodies throughout the day.

David Klinghoffer gives his perspective on this topic, reaching a different conclusion than Dartmouth College physicist Marcelo Gleiser.

Dartmouth College physicist Marcelo Gleiser, writing at Big Think, asks, “Does life on Earth have a purpose?” Obviously, this is more than just a scientific question. It’s a very personal one for each of us. Given the venue, Gleiser’s answer of course is going to be no.

Gleiser’s own case rests on the part played by chance in life’s history. For example, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs:

If we changed one or more of the dramatic events in Earth’s history — say, the cataclysmic impact of the asteroid that helped eliminate the dinosaurs 66 million years ago — life’s history on Earth would also change. We probably would not be here asking about life’s purpose. The lesson from life is simple: In Nature, creation and destruction dance together. But there is no choreographer.

His argument: The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction cleared the field for mammals, allowing ultimately for the rise of “intelligent, technology-savvy humans.” No asteroid –> no humans. The asteroid was a chance, unchoreographed event. Therefore, says Dr. Gleiser, no “choreographer” intended our existence.

The Role of Providence

This is a remarkably shallow conclusion. As luck would have it (if you want to put it that way), I’ve been thinking about the role of providence, as I see it, in my own path of life. Any of us can point to certain pivotal events in our past — a seemingly chance meeting, a piece of advice received, an idea that came to us unbidden — that need not have occurred, but did. And because they did, we found the path to our current place (marriage, relationships, friendships, work, the whole thing) laid out before us.

Gleiser’s argument about the history of life is just a separate application of the depressing view that denies anything in our life paths could have been intended for us. That the view is depressing doesn’t mean that it is mistaken. That it can be asserted doesn’t mean that it is correct.

Purposeful Information

To decide about providence in the rise of complex life, you would have to look at a much wider suite of evidences than the fact that an asteroid doomed the dinosaurs. Scientific proponents of intelligent design have done this, noting vast evidence of extraordinarily careful tuning in physics, chemistry, and biology, from the Big Bang itself, to the origin of life, to the series of biological “big bangs” through which bursts of purposeful information infused the biosphere. 

The most recent treatments of this theme include biologist Michael Denton’s The Miracle of Man and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis. Meyer’s book points to three scientific discoveries that demand a conclusion of purpose behind the cosmos (that the universe has a beginning, that it was fine-tuned for life from the start, that life is a form of information-processing technology). On the radical discontinuities in evolution that bespeak purpose and creativity, see Meyer and paleontologist Günter Bechly’s chapter (“The Fossil Record and Universal Common Ancestry”) in the volume Theistic Evolution.

“The Wheel Has Turned”

From a different perspective, Denton explains this beautifully and profoundly. What Gleiser terms “intelligent, technology-savvy humans” are exactly what almost countless coincidences in nature have been set just so in order to permit. As Dr. Denton has written here about this “prior fitness” for human beings, creatures capable of manipulating fire, and therefore of engaging in technological invention:

Even though many mysteries remain, we can now, in these first decades of the 21st century, at last answer with confidence Thomas Huxley’s question of questions as to “the place which mankind occupies in nature and of his relations to the universe of things.” As matters stand, the evidence increasingly points to a natural order uniquely fit for life on Earth and for beings of a biology close to that of humans, a view which does not prove but is entirely consistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian framework….

“Mysteries remain,” as Denton acknowledges. Yet, “The wheel has turned.” Modern science calls us to recognize the role of providence in the history of the cosmos, of our planet, and of life. If that is true in cosmology and biology, it’s a hint that it might be true, too, on the far smaller scale of our individual biographies.

Full article at Evolution News.
Comments
JVL, you still know better. You are indirectly trying to justify the ongoing 1.4+ billion holocaust, mounting up at another million per week. You also know that while all of us struggle with finitude, fallibility, moral challenge and ill will and that power tends to corrupt so the path of history will be marked by wrongs, the civilisation-ruining impact of a dominant evolutionary materialism has been known since Plato. Such evolutionary materialism is self referentially incoherent and self falsifying. KF PS, we note Plato:
Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: "nature" (here, mechanical, blind necessity), "chance" (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all[--> notice the reduction to zero] 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.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
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,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . this is actually an infamous credo of nihilism . . . also, it reeks of cynically manipulative lawless oligarchy . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
On record for 2360 years.kairosfocus
August 11, 2022
August
08
Aug
11
11
2022
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Related:
Animals operate by extinct. They mate only under certain conditions. Their ability to think is limited. In the wild, wild animals hunt, capture and eat their prey. Humans raise livestock and fish. So to act like an animal implies some sort of out of control behavior. Animals eat enough and are satisfied. If they are meant to be fast on their feet then they can’t get fat.
Your ability to analyse animal behaviour by your astute observation is as impressive as your other skills.Alan Fox
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
Relatd @118, Also, I just saw this . . . https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/vaccine-injuries-are-real-not-rare -QQuerius
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
JVL 109 “If I was invited to ask questions I’ve got quite a few!!” You obviously have not thought this through. Vividvividbleau
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
Yes, adverse events are *supposed* to be rare, but then the CDC also said that the vaccine would prevent Covid-19 infections, which isn't true. I'd truly like to trust the integrity of CDC announcements but my trust has been severely undermined. Here's a recent news report out of San Diego, California:
SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – Several US life insurance companies have recently revealed an overwhelming unexplained increase (40%) in “all-cause deaths” amongst 18 to 49-year-olds. Three physician “whistle-blowers” have just released real data from the DoD, drawn from the clinical diagnosis codes. The increases found are from 2021, compared to the five year average from 2016 to 2020. > Myocardial infarction: 269% increase > Miscarriages: 300% increase > Bell’s palsy: 291% increase > Congenital malformations: 156% increase > Female infertility: 471% increase > Pulmonary embolisms: 467% increase > Neurologic abnormalities: 300% increase > Cancers: 300% increase As of now, the CDC has not explained this data. Dr. Kelly Victory discussed the surprising findings and respond to those who believe the COVID-19 vaccines have caused these increases.
So, several life insurance companies have noticed a significant increase in deaths from all causes in deaths of working-age Americans. For example, the yearly deaths from cancers in 2016-2020 averaged 28,000 deaths per year, but it increased to almost 120,000 deaths from cancer in 2021. This is significant. Three experienced military doctors found similar disturbing increases among military personnel in 2021 from the DoD database. Dr. Victory suggested that such anomalies should be investigated by the CDC . . . what happened in 2021 that was different from previous years? She speculated that maybe it could have been caused by global warming, but instead of being interested, the CDC has shut down any investigation of the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if vaccine injuries are far more common than recorded in the VAERS database and my trust in the CDC has been eroded to the point where I now only trust them to lie whenever convenient. -QQuerius
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
Querius at 117, I won't dispute your personal experience. No one I knew died or reported severe adverse reactions. Temporary soreness at the shoulder occurred but disappeared after two days. Here is a direct link to the CDC and their data. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html As you can see, especially toward the bottom, adverse events were rare. I suggest you compare this to the annual flu and other vaccines. Though understandable in the case of the newer vaccines, other vaccines can cause adverse events. The numbers are small, as a percentage, when compared to the total doses administered.relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Relatd @99,
I work with professional writers and have been doing this for a long time. I know clueless hacks with no creativity want a way to get rid of people – the most expensive, to them – part of their business. They want to make the same amount of money, or more, using programs to create mediocrity. But I reject mediocrity – always will. What they forget is while they get great joy out of firing people, these are the same people they are trying to sell their product or idea to.
Yes, indeed! In my experience, the same is true in many fields and enterprises, including publishing, manufacturing, software, and anything innovative. The result is that most people, not being complete fools, stop buying their products. The corporation hacks then decide that this is not their "core business" and sell off or close the business, awarding themselves generous bonuses for making "tough decisions." I call it the "reverse Midas touch." Regarding experimental vaccines, I'll have to disagree based on personal experience--too many people I know or am related to suffered vaccine damage, several seriously, and one died. None of them were reported to the VAERS database. Check this out: https://www.kusi.com/there-was-an-unexpected-40-increase-in-all-cause-deaths-in-2021/ Gosh now what in the world might possibly be implicated in this medical mystery?
March 25, 2022 - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,195,396 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 18, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. The data included a total of 26,059 reports of deaths — an increase of 418 over the previous week — and 211,584 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,375 compared with the previous week. . . . Of the 11,943 U.S. deaths reported as of March 18, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 21% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
Admittedly, this could all be a complete coincidence, right? -QQuerius
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
"If you’re wrong, and your God doesn’t actually exist then you are in the same position as me." JVL, I would be. But I'm right. Unfortunately for you, you've placed yourself in a position with no hope. You already acknowledge your position has no claim of superiority. So I regard your position as worthless. Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
The phrase "act like an animal" needs a little context. Animals operate by extinct. They mate only under certain conditions. Their ability to think is limited. In the wild, wild animals hunt, capture and eat their prey. Humans raise livestock and fish. So to act like an animal implies some sort of out of control behavior. Animals eat enough and are satisfied. If they are meant to be fast on their feet then they can't get fat. We humans are supposed to be better but whether out of need or being encouraged into criminal behavior, humans can hurt others to get what they want. To kill others who are viewed as rivals and to gain position in some group. To become the head of some group due to having decided that being a criminal and killing are valid means to attain wealth and power.relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
JVL at 110, "No, I do not (believe I have an immaterial mind). FYI, either you believe that you are a purely physical being or you believe you have the free will necessary to overcome your 'physical' nature, i.e. to not 'act like an animal'. You can't have it both ways. Of note, free will, besides being a defining attribute of the immaterial mind, is also the defining attribute of agent causality. And free will, and/or agent causality, is simply denied as being real within the metaphysics of Atheistic Materialism.
You Don’t Have Free Will By Jerry A. Coyne – March 18, 2012 Excerpt: “Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our “choices”—are dictated by those laws.” Jerry Coyne https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165
As Paul Nelson explains, under Atheistic, and/or Methodological, Naturalism, “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.”
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. ,,, some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/
And as George Ellis explained, “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level (physical) processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.”
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will – July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
As should be obvious, the denial of free will, and/or agent causality, by atheists, which is forced upon them by their naturalistic metaphysics, is insane. As Dr. Michael Egnor noted, “Someday, I predict, there will be a considerable psychiatric literature on the denial of free will. It’s essentially a delusion dressed up as science. To insist that your neurotransmitters completely control your choices is no different than insisting that your television or your iphone control your thoughts. It’s crazy.”
Michael Egnor: Jerry Coyne Just Can’t Give Up Denying Free Will – April 27, 2020 Excerpt: Someday, I predict, there will be a considerable psychiatric literature on the denial of free will. It’s essentially a delusion dressed up as science. To insist that your neurotransmitters completely control your choices is no different than insisting that your television or your iphone control your thoughts. It’s crazy. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-jerry-coyne-just-cant-give-up-denying-free-will/
Of note, in quantum mechanics Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter(s) in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past, for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Verse:
Deuteronomy 30: 19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
bornagain77
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
JVL at 112, Don't say you weren't warned. Hebrews 9:27 "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,"relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Relatd: You also realize it’s too late for questions. You, and everyone else, are judged. What's the rush; God is supposed to be eternal so he's got plenty of time.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
JVL at 109, You also realize it's too late for questions. You, and everyone else, are judged.relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: So you, a Darwinist, now believe that you have an immaterial mind? No, I do not.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Relatd: I’ll keep this brief. You die. You end up standing before God. No one around to tell you, you just know it. Then what? If I was invited to ask questions I've got quite a few!!JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
JVL at 107, Using the old - and tired - baby eating hedonist argument. And the old 'good without God.' Everything you do is about perception but some things are less likely to happen because you don't just rely on how you "feel,' like yes to hedonism, for example. You do what you "feel" and have no external standards because, well, God might not exist and I'll go with that. I'll keep this brief. You die. You end up standing before God. No one around to tell you, you just know it. Then what?relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Relatd: Sad. You ignore the core reality of Christianity: Jesus Christ was sent to die as a sacrifice for our sins. Because God so loved the world. That is real – not situational ethics or the words of men. I know that's what you believe. Glad it works for you. “You do what feels fair and civilised.” Based on what? “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.” Hardly. The most important thing is to try and see things from the other person's point of view. And to think about how you'd like to be treated. I don't know why you think not believing in God means you have to be some raving, baby-eating, hedonist. If you found out God didn't exist would you all of a sudden change into someone you weren't? Are your morals that shallow? Do you obey them only because your creator God tells you to? I don't believe you do. I think you feel deeply that your ethics and morals are sensible and correct and fair. I don't think you'd change if I could prove to you that God doesn't exist. You'd stay pretty much the same person 'cause that's who you are. You don't need God to be loving and caring. You would be like that anyway.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
JVL: "If that means I disagree with Dr Coyne or Dr Dawkins, so be it." So you, a Darwinist, now believe that you have an immaterial mind?
Free will: a source totally detached from matter (detached from nature) which is the origin (cause) of options, thoughts, feelings,... That is, the absence of (natural) laws, the existence of an "autonomous mind", i.e. a principium individuationis.
Dr. Michael Egnor, who is a neurosurgeon as well as professor of neurosurgery at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, lists six properties of immaterial mind that are irreconcilable with the view that the mind is just the material brain. Those six properties of the immaterial mind are, “Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,”
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
bornagain77
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: If Darwinism is true, then we are not capable of choosing ANYTHING, much less choosing whether to act like animals or not, or whether to do something morally good or not ! I don't think that's true. If that means I disagree with Dr Coyne or Dr Dawkins, so be it.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
JVL at 102, Sad. You ignore the core reality of Christianity: Jesus Christ was sent to die as a sacrifice for our sins. Because God so loved the world. That is real - not situational ethics or the words of men. "You do what feels fair and civilised." Based on what? "Hey man. If it feels good, do it."relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
JVL: "No one said we should just act like animals! You have this ridiculous notion that if we don’t believe in God then we have to act like lions and tigers and bears. Well, we don’t have to do that and we choose not to do that." "we choose not to do that"? REALLY??? Someone really needs to get in touch with their inner Darwin. If Darwinism is true, then we are not capable of choosing ANYTHING, much less choosing whether to act like animals or not, or whether to do something morally good or not !
The Illusion of Free Will - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.,,," - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/ Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html Of note: Martin Cothran is author of several textbooks on traditional logic https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Cothran/e/B00J249LUA/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1
bornagain77
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: Should he have been ‘allowed’ to continue his slaughter of Jews until they were wiped off the face of the earth simply because it ‘rang true’ for him? If not, why not? No because your freedoms end at the end of your nose. That is: you don't get to impose your morals and standards on other people. That's another one of my ethical stances. This is something you agree on: you don't think my morals and ethics should dictate what you do and experience. Since human beings have chosen to live in communities, sometimes very large communities, then it's sensible to adopt those standards and morals which the majority support. It's not a perfect system but, given that you guys are still arguing over what was written down in the Bible over 2000 years ago, I can't think of a better way of doing things. 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. i.e. altruism No one said we should just act like animals! You have this ridiculous notion that if we don't believe in God then we have to act like lions and tigers and bears. Well, we don't have to do that and we choose not to do that. Well, most of us anyway. And, if your God doesn't actually exist, then you have made pretty much the same choice. You do what feels fair and civilised. I think that's what most of us do do. And, fortunately, most of the time, a lot of us agree on a lot of things.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Asauber: Is there a reason you think that? Or is there any way you can demonstrate that? Do the math for me. Is there a way you can demonstrate that your moral stance is not just a cultural norm that has been codified in an ancient text? I admit my moral and ethical views are based on my own opinion and societal norms. You assert yours are based on some unprovable creator (which I fully accept is as real as the earth and the skies to you). If you're wrong, and your God doesn't actually exist then you are in the same position as me. Even if your God exists those who profess to believe in him/her/it can't always agree on what God's given moral stance and ethics are. It all seems a bit murky to me. So, to turn things back in your direction: is there a way you can demonstrate to me that your morals are objective and eternal especially in light of the obvious fact that the people of the book can't agree on what it says?JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
JVL at 84: "Actually, I’m allowed to adopt whatever moral stance rings true to me, just like you do." Well JVL, killing 6 million Jews certainly 'rang true' for Hitler and his henchmen. Should he have been 'allowed' to continue his slaughter of Jews until they were wiped off the face of the earth simply because it 'rang true' for him? If not, why not?
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
Of note, Darwin's theory is not only amoral, it is ANTI-moral.
“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
Adolf Hilter 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. i.e. altruism
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
Moreover, Hitler was hardly the only murderous tyrant who based his worldview 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, 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 https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756
Of related note, multicellular life would not even exist unless cooperative and altruistic behavior existed at the molecular and cellular level. (which is the antithesis of Darwin's selfish 'survival of the fittest' presupposition) 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 held. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in an extensive holistic web of mutual inter-dependence and cooperation (which is, obviously, the very antithesis of being selfish as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned).
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. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/
Again, such extensive, even astonishing, ‘holistic cooperation’ between genes is the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned genes to be via his Darwinian presuppositions., (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of a religion for atheists, count as yet another powerful falsification of Darwin's theory) it is also interesting to note that the highest possible morality within Christian ethics is the altruistic morality of someone giving his life so that others may live.
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
Indeed, the medal-of-honor, which is the highest medal awarded for military service, is based on self-sacrificial, altruistic, morality where a man either dies, or puts his life in extreme jeopardy, for the sake of his fellow soldiers. Yet, such self sacrificial altruistic behavior, which is central, even defining, to the Christian’s entire view of objective morality, is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s one ‘general law’ of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.” Yet, if it were not for such self-sacrificial altruistic behavior in multicellular organisms we simply would not even be here to argue whether morality was objectively real or not. Specifically, ‘apoptosis’, which means programmed cell death, is a necessary part of embryological development for 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
Thus in conclusion, multicellular life would not even possible if the cellular level of life was not, in large measure, Intelligently Designed along, and/or based upon, the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. i.e. altruism. Simply put, if certain cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist.
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.
Of supplemental note
Darwin’s predictions – altruism – Cornelius Hunter 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.,,,” https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/altruism
bornagain77
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Querius at 98, I work with professional writers and have been doing this for a long time. I know clueless hacks with no creativity want a way to get rid of people - the most expensive, to them - part of their business. They want to make the same amount of money, or more, using programs to create mediocrity. But I reject mediocrity - always will. What they forget is while they get great joy out of firing people, these are the same people they are trying to sell their product or idea to. So, to any people like that reading this, you don't fire somebody from a job and expect him to buy your product. You don't put junk on TV and expect everyone - or most people - to not notice. But at the same time, there are people who are smart, who do not tolerate mediocrity and who know how to spread false messages or push their agenda. Those in charge hope people are too dumb to notice. "Abolish the police" Leftists-Communists with nothing better to do. "mandate experimental vaccines" Who said they were experimental? I am prepared to deal with anyone who says they were not the end result of years of research. "and spend ourselves into prosperity" All of the credit card companies want you to do that. "to create an amazing new socialist workers paradise!" The Marxist-Atheist (wannabe) dictatorship has gone too far. People will no longer stand for their nonsense.relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Relatd @89, Way too late! Bots have been used to generate news headlines (and plot developments in soap operas) for decades! You get bonus points for AABBCC combinations:
It’s an accepted fact among Christian atheists, that vegetarian truckers are responsible for divorce inequality.
And politics? How about . . .
Stronger together, we'll make America great again and build back better.
But not all of these have worked out so well:
Abolish the police, mandate experimental vaccines, and spend ourselves into prosperity to create an amazing new socialist workers paradise!
And remember that it’s an accepted fact among historians that consumers are responsible for illegal drugs. -QQuerius
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
"Yes, my moral stance is more than a worthless opinion." JVL, Is there a reason you think that? Or is there any way you can demonstrate that? Do the math for me. Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Asauber: Answer the question. Yes, my moral stance is more than a worthless opinion. (Here's comes the predictable appeal to theological support for morals and ethics that most people hold even if they aren't Christians.) I should think that the important point is that we agree on some key moral and ethical issues. Does it matter more how we got there over agreeing on some important topics? I guess for you it does.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
"But can you say your moral stance is anything more than a worthless opinion?" JVL, Answer the question. Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
JVL at 93, Your opinion matters to you when you see some advantage in posting it here. If not...relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 7

Leave a Reply