At Mind Matters News: Why would a purely physical universe need imaginary numbers?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 17, 2022

Intelligent Design, Mathematics}

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

Our computers and the entire modern world depend on them, says science writer Michael Brooks in an excerpt from his new book:

In an excerpt from his new book, The Art of More: How Mathematics Created Civilization, science writer Michael Brooks offers the intriguing idea that the modern world arose from imaginary numbers:

But what does his claim that the numbers are “not some deep mystery about the universe” leave us? Recent studies have shown that imaginary numbers — which we can’t really represent by objects, the way we can represent natural numbers by objects — are needed to
describe reality. Quantum mechanics pioneers did not like them and worked out ways around them:

In fact, even the founders of quantum mechanics themselves thought that the implications of having complex numbers in their equations was disquieting. In a letter to his friend Hendrik Lorentz, physicist Erwin Schrödinger — the first person to introduce complex numbers into quantum theory, with his quantum wave function (ψ) — wrote, “What is unpleasant here, and indeed directly to be objected to, is the use of complex numbers. Ψ is surely fundamentally a real function.”
Ben Turner, “Imaginary numbers could be needed to describe reality, new studies find” at LiveScience (December 10, 2021)

But recent studies in science journals Nature and Physical Review Letters have shown, via a simple experiment, that the mathematics of our universe requires imaginary numbers.
News, “Why would a purely physical universe need imaginary numbers?” at Mind Matters News (February 16, 2022)

Takehome: The most reasonable explanation is that the universe, while physical, is also an idea, one that cannot be reduced to its physical features alone.

You may also wish to read:

Why the unknowable number exists but is uncomputable. Sensing that a computer program is “elegant” requires discernment. Proving mathematically that it is elegant is, Chaitin shows, impossible. Gregory Chaitin walks readers through his proof of unknowability, which is based on the Law of Non-contradiction.

Most real numbers are not real, or not in the way you think. Most real numbers contain an encoding of all of the books in the US Library of Congress. The infinite only exists as an idea in our minds. Therefore, curiously, most real numbers are not real. (Robert J. Marks)

and

Can we add new numbers to mathematics? We can work with hyperreal numbers using conventional methods. Surprisingly, yes. It began when the guy who discovered irrational numbers was—we are told—tossed into the sea. (Jonathan Bartlett)

Comments

Seversky @ 314
I know some Christians believe they are an oppressed minority but it’s an absurd belief.
It brings up a bunch of issues.
The overwhelming majority of members of both Federal or State congresses identify themselves as believers, mostly some flavor of Christianity. They have had their hands on the levers of political power in this country since its foundation. Those who oppressed other races throughout this country’s history would have identified themselves as Christian almost to a man or woman.
But there's been a very big change in American culture since the Civil War (if you're referring to the slavery era). The real influence and power in the country is with academia where young minds are shaped. Since the mid 20th century, colleges and universities have been changed from places where (mostly Christian) values were inculcated in students to now, where post-modernist deconstructionism is the primary goal in liberal arts and even touching in some ways on science. Evolutionary biology makes Christianity a minority view, and as BA points out, there has been oppression and cancelling of Christian teachers. Christianity is therefore a minority view in the shapers of culture - academia, entertainment and media. It still has a presence in sports, to some degree on an individual level (athletes still pray but sports teams are not permitted to promote religion beyond that). But going beyond all of that, I always have a problem talking about "Christianity" on this site because people can define that term in different ways. The Amish, for example, would think of themselves as a persecuted minority and some think they are "true Christianity" versus all others. The other big problem for me, which I fall into frequently, is identifying ID as a Christian project. But there are atheists, Jews, Hindus and Muslims who support ID. There are also Christians who oppose ID. So, it's too messy to sort all of that out on a forum like this which is not supposed to be for theological debate.Silver Asiatic_{February 25, 2022
February
02
Feb
25
25
2022
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Of related note to the atheist's war on Christianity:
UK Humanists seek to ‘ban repentance’! by Gavin Cox - 22 February 2022 https://creation.com/uk-humanists-seek-to-ban-repentance
Sev, so tell me again about how atheists are being unfairly 'despised' and persecuted.bornagain77_{February 25, 2022
February
02
Feb
25
25
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Seversky states, “it’s the likes of atheists and agnostics who were – and to an extent still are, judging by the comments made about them here – the despised minority.” Sev, a couple of observations. First it is weird that an atheist, of all people, would try to claim to be a quote-unquote ‘despised’ minority when it is Christians who have been ‘despised’, i.e. persecuted, especially in Academia, for their beliefs.
At Mind Matters News: Non-Materialist Science Is Wanted — Dead Or Alive – August 29, 2021 Michael Egnor: They will destroy people. They will destroy people’s careers. Look at what people tried to do to Mike Behe for writing Darwin’s Black Box (1996). He’s tenured. But in his department, he was treated as a pariah. If they could have fired him, they would have done it in a minute. Arjuna Das: I was wondering how he got away with it. Michael Egnor: He’s tenured. I’ve gotten calls to my department in my university demanding that I be fired. That’s a fairly frequent thing. I was called a couple of years ago by the campus police that there was a death threat against me and they wanted to protect me. So this kind of stuff goes on. And some of these people are vicious. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-non-materialist-science-is-wanted-dead-or-alive/ Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality. Scott Minnich Richard Sternberg Günter Bechly Eric Hedin Don McDonald David Coppedge Caroline Crocker Bryan Leonard Martin Gaskell Dean Kenyon Roger DeHart Granville Sewell https://freescience.today/stories/ Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/ Slaughter of Dissidents – Book Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,?”If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller? - per amazon Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
Thus Seversky your lamenting being a ‘despised’ minority rings very hollow. And I note that this persecution of Christians at the hands of Atheists in Academia is in spite of the fact that empirical science itself literally falsifies core Darwinian presuppositions at every turn,
Darwinism vs. Falsification – list https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/
And I also note that this persecution of Christians at the hands of Atheists in Academia is in spite of the fact that we can’t even ‘do science’ in the first place without first assuming Intelligent Design, even assuming Judeo-Christian, presuppositions as being true.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
I also note that this persecution of Christians at the hands of atheists in academia is also in spite of the fact that the University system itself owes its very existence to Christianity.
Another development in the history of Christian education was the founding of universities. The origins of the university can be traced to the 12th century, and by the 13th century the medieval university had reached its mature form. Universities were founded during the rest of the Middle Ages throughout Europe and spread from there to other continents after the 16th century. The earliest universities emerged as associations of masters or students (the Latin universitas means “guild” or “union”) that were dedicated to the pursuit of higher learning. The universities, which superseded the cathedral schools as centres of advanced study, came to have a number of shared traits: the teaching methods of lecture and disputation, the extended communal living in colleges, the periodically changing leadership of an elected dean, the inner structure according to faculties or “nations,” and the European recognition of academic degrees. Universities provided instruction in the liberal arts and advanced study in the disciplines of law, medicine, and, most importantly, theology. Many of the great theologians of the era, notably St. Thomas Aquinas, were associated with the universities. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/Forms-of-Christian-education The History of Christian Education in America Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all “sound knowledge and learning.” – per ehow Only eighteen years after the Pilgrims landed in the New World, Harvard College, the first of the Ivy League schools, was established for the sake of educating the clergy and raising up a Christian academic institution to meet the needs of perpetuating the Christian faith. All of the Ivy League schools were established by Christians for the sake of advancing Christianity and meeting the academic needs of the New World. No better summary of this effort can be offered than the one provided by the founders themselves:,,, – per Christian heritage
Sev: the second observation about your false claim about being a ‘despised’ minority is that you are missing the forest for the trees. You see Seversky, you and other atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, will often wax poetic about how much better the world would be without Christianity. In other words, atheists often try to sell a vision of a ‘Atheistic utopia”. But the fact of the matter is that every time atheists have gained power in a country, and have suppressed Christianity within that country, far from turning their countries into ‘utopias’, atheists have instead turned their countries into living hellholes.
Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
Thus Seversky, when I rhetorically asked, “why don’t they (atheists), (since they hate Christianity so much), just move to some other country, like North Korea, where any Christian influence in that country is brutally suppressed?”, I was being, tongue in cheek, facetious in my question and was merely pointing out that the false imaginary world of a ‘atheistic utopia’, that atheists constantly try to sell to the general public, is, much like Darwinian evolution itself, contradicted by reality itself. In short, the mythical ‘atheistic utopia’ that atheists imagine to be possible without Christianity simply does not exist in reality. I.e. It is a fantasy! Of related interest is this failed ‘experiment’ to create an atheistic utopia right here in America:
Atheism and Liberal, Missouri Excerpt: In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895). “His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels…a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895).,,, It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure. Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. - per apologetics press
Verse:
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
bornagain77_{February 25, 2022
February
02
Feb
25
25
2022
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

Seversky states, "it’s the likes of atheists and agnostics who were – and to an extent still are, judging by the comments made about them here – the despised minority." Sev, a couple of observations. First it is weird that an atheist, of all people, would try to claim to be a quote-unquote 'despised' minority when it is Christians who have been 'despised', i.e. persecuted, especially in Academia, for their beliefs.
At Mind Matters News: Non-Materialist Science Is Wanted — Dead Or Alive - August 29, 2021 Michael Egnor: They will destroy people. They will destroy people’s careers. Look at what people tried to do to Mike Behe for writing Darwin’s Black Box (1996). He’s tenured. But in his department, he was treated as a pariah. If they could have fired him, they would have done it in a minute. Arjuna Das: I was wondering how he got away with it. Michael Egnor: He’s tenured. I’ve gotten calls to my department in my university demanding that I be fired. That’s a fairly frequent thing. I was called a couple of years ago by the campus police that there was a death threat against me and they wanted to protect me. So this kind of stuff goes on. And some of these people are vicious. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-non-materialist-science-is-wanted-dead-or-alive/ Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality. Scott Minnich Richard Sternberg Günter Bechly Eric Hedin Don McDonald David Coppedge Caroline Crocker Bryan Leonard Martin Gaskell Dean Kenyon Roger DeHart Granville Sewell https://freescience.today/stories/ Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/ Slaughter of Dissidents – Book Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,?"If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller?http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
Thus Seversky your lamenting being a 'despised' minority rings very hollow. And I note that this persecution of Christians at the hands of Atheists in Academia is in spite of the fact that empirical science itself literally falsifies core Darwinian presuppositions at every turn,
Darwinism vs. Falsification - list https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/
And I also note that this persecution of Christians at the hands of Atheists in Academia is in spite of the fact that we can't even 'do science' in the first place without first assuming Intelligent Design, even assuming Judeo-Christian, presuppositions as being true.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
I also note that this persecution of Christians at the hands of atheists in academia is also in spite of the fact that the University system itself owes its very existence to Christianity.
Another development in the history of Christian education was the founding of universities. The origins of the university can be traced to the 12th century, and by the 13th century the medieval university had reached its mature form. Universities were founded during the rest of the Middle Ages throughout Europe and spread from there to other continents after the 16th century. The earliest universities emerged as associations of masters or students (the Latin universitas means “guild” or “union”) that were dedicated to the pursuit of higher learning. The universities, which superseded the cathedral schools as centres of advanced study, came to have a number of shared traits: the teaching methods of lecture and disputation, the extended communal living in colleges, the periodically changing leadership of an elected dean, the inner structure according to faculties or “nations,” and the European recognition of academic degrees. Universities provided instruction in the liberal arts and advanced study in the disciplines of law, medicine, and, most importantly, theology. Many of the great theologians of the era, notably St. Thomas Aquinas, were associated with the universities. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/Forms-of-Christian-education The History of Christian Education in America Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all “sound knowledge and learning.” - per ehow Only eighteen years after the Pilgrims landed in the New World, Harvard College, the first of the Ivy League schools, was established for the sake of educating the clergy and raising up a Christian academic institution to meet the needs of perpetuating the Christian faith. All of the Ivy League schools were established by Christians for the sake of advancing Christianity and meeting the academic needs of the New World. No better summary of this effort can be offered than the one provided by the founders themselves:,,, - per Christian heritage
Sev: the second observation about your false claim about being a 'despised' minority is that you are missing the forest for the trees. You see Seversky, you and other atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, will often wax poetic about how much better the world would be without Christianity. In other words, atheists often try to sell a vision of a 'Atheistic utopia". But the fact of the matter is that every time atheists have gained power in a country, and have suppressed Christianity within that country, far from turning their countries into 'utopias', atheists have instead turned their countries into living hellholes.
Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
Thus Seversky, when I rhetorically asked, "why don’t they (atheists), (since they hate Christianity so much), just move to some other country, like North Korea, where any Christian influence in that country is brutally suppressed?”, I was being, tongue in cheek, facetious in my question and was merely pointing out that the false imaginary world of a 'atheistic utopia', that atheists constantly try to sell to the general public, is, much like Darwinian evolution itself, contradicted by reality itself. In short, the mythical 'atheistic utopia' that atheists imagine to be possible without Christianity simply does not exist in reality. I.e. It is a fantasy! Of related interest is this failed 'experiment' to create an atheistic utopia right here in America:
Atheism and Liberal, Missouri Excerpt: In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895). “His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels...a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895).,,, It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure. Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1447
Verse:
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
bornagain77_{February 25, 2022
February
02
Feb
25
25
2022
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77/313
And indeed, I’ve often wondered after Seversky, or some other atheist, has bashed Christianity on UD, “If they hate Christianity so much, why don’t they just move to some other country, like North Korea, where any Christian influence in that country is brutally suppressed?” I think the answer is fairly obvious.
I know some Christians believe they are an oppressed minority but it's an absurd belief. The overwhelming majority of members of both Federal or State congresses identify themselves as believers, mostly some flavor of Christianity. They have had their hands on the levers of political power in this country since its foundation. Those who oppressed other races throughout this country's history would have identified themselves as Christian almost to a man or woman. If anything, it's the likes of atheists and agnostics who were - and to an extent still are, judging by the comments made about them here - the despised minority.Seversky_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the comments. As to Jerry's observation in particular: "what is missing in all these criticisms is the ability to point to anything better. Before one criticizes Christianity, please point to a superior way of life. I have never seen anyone do it." Indeed, Atheists and non-Christians who regularly visit UD primarily to bash Christianity, (and never really give a cogent defense of the supposed 'science' of Darwinian evolution), never seem to ask themselves, "what would the world look like without Christianity?" Despite what atheists may falsely imagine about Christianity, the fact of the matter is that Christianity has been the most powerful 'force for good' in the world that the world has ever known. The late Dr. D. James Kennedy (2007) once asked "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?".
What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?: The Impact of Jesus in the World – D. James Kennedy - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTPC2crcoVo Book https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/what-if-jesus-had-never-been-born-the-positive-impact-of-christianity-in-history_d-james-kennedy_jerry-newcombe/324511/item/4537575/
In his study of the question, Dr. Kennedy found 21 powerfully 'good' contributions to the world that Christianity has given.
21 Positive Contributions Christianity Has Made Through the Centuries By D. James Kennedy (excerpted from "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?") (1) Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages. (2) Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started for Christian purposes. (3) Literacy and education for the masses. (4) Capitalism and free enterprise. (5) Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment. (6) The separation of political powers. (7) Civil liberties. (8) The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in more modern times. (9) Modern science. (10) The discovery of the New World by Columbus. (11) The elevation of women. (12) Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic. (13) Higher standards of justice. (14) The elevation of common man. (15) The condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions. This has helped to preserve the human race, and it has spared many from heartache. (16) High regard for human life. (17) The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures. (18) The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages. (19) Greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art. (20) The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel. (21) The eternal salvation of countless souls. https://verticallivingministries.com/tag/benefits-of-christianity-to-society/
And although Atheists and non-Christians on UD may strenuously object to homosexuality being included as a 'sexual perversion' in Dr. Kennedy's list, none-the-less, I would think that even Atheists and non-Christians would also agree that Dr. Kennedy's list is, by and large, a very impressive list in so far as establishing that Christianity has had a tremendously positive impact on the world.
Defense of all 21 claims: (Dec. 2019) 1-5 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-christianity-has-been-the-worlds-greatest-engine-for-moral-reform/#comment-690247 8-11 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-christianity-has-been-the-worlds-greatest-engine-for-moral-reform/#comment-690251 12-16 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-christianity-has-been-the-worlds-greatest-engine-for-moral-reform/#comment-690252 17-21 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-christianity-has-been-the-worlds-greatest-engine-for-moral-reform/#comment-690256
In comparison, what has any other worldview, especially atheism, given the world? If anything, Stalin and Mao are shining examples of the depths of moral depravity that man is capable of sinking to when man 'forgets God'
"More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - 1983 Templeton Address
As atheist and/or agnostic historian Tom Holland stated, "In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian." and "If Western civilization is the fishbowl then the water is Christianity."
Tom Holland: Why I was wrong about Christianity - 2016 It took me a long time to realise my morals are not Greek or Roman, but thoroughly, and proudly, Christian. Excerpt: The longer I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien and unsettling I came to find it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics, and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value. As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment – that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born – increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable. “Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.” Rather than acknowledge that his ethical principles might owe anything to Christianity, he preferred to derive them from a range of other sources – not just classical literature, but Chinese philosophy and his own powers of reason. Yet Voltaire, in his concern for the weak and oppressed, was marked more enduringly by the stamp of biblical ethics than he cared to admit. His defiance of the Christian God, in a paradox that was certainly not unique to him, drew on motivations that were, in part at least, recognisably Christian. “We preach Christ crucified,” St Paul declared, “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” He was right. Nothing could have run more counter to the most profoundly held assumptions of Paul’s contemporaries – Jews, or Greeks, or Romans. The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment – not to suffer it themselves. Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian. - per new statesman Atheists in Praise of Christianity? - May 19, 2020 Excerpt: Historian Tom Holland is known primarily as a storyteller of the ancient world. Thus, his newest book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, came as something of a surprise for several reasons. First, Tom Holland is not a Christian. Second, Holland’s book is one of the most ambitious historical defenses of Christianity in a very long time. Attracting Criticism Holland’s book-length defense of the belief system the elites love to despise has unsurprisingly attracted some criticism. He faced off with militant atheist and prominent philosopher A.C. Grayling on the question “Did Christianity give us our human values?” Grayling struggled to rebut Holland, sounding more petty than philosophical. Holland, on the other hand, became positively passionate in his defense of Christianity. If Western civilization is the fishbowl, he stated, then the water is Christianity. https://stream.org/atheists-in-praise-of-christianity/
And indeed, I've often wondered after Seversky, or some other atheist, has bashed Christianity on UD, "If they hate Christianity so much, why don't they just move to some other country, like North Korea, where any Christian influence in that country is brutally suppressed?" I think the answer is fairly obvious. Verse:
Matthew 7: 15-20 Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.
bornagain77_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

BA77
we all, everyone of us, (Christians and non-Christians included), fail, on some level or other, to meet that standard of moral perfection
True. It's not a good idea to reject Christianity simply because people do not live up to the perfect moral standard that Christ established. It's the same for someone who is opposed to religion because the Jews were unfaithful. That person should start with a solid understanding of reality first (which is the ID view) and philosophy of causality (God is the necessary being and first cause). Our own personal moral development and practice of virtue is not dependent on what everybody else is doing.Silver Asiatic_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

"But what is missing in all these criticisms is the ability to point to anything better. Before one criticizes Christianity, please point to a superior way of life. I have never seen anyone do it." Jerry, I agree with this. No alternatives offered. Andrewasauber_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

KF
that error exists is a first example of self evident, absolutely known truth that overturns any claim – that we cannot know truth (likely, we cannot adequately warrant truth claims) or – that there is no accurate description of reality (= there is no truth), or – that there is no reality capable of being accurately described, etc.
That's an excellent starting point - irrefutable. That error exists refutes monism. Then, as you say, it refutes the notion that the truth does not exist. This cuts directly against the claim that 'reality does not exist' - since the truth is aligned with being and therefore with what is real. The world is not reducible to quantum physics, which is really just an interpretation based on measures and mathematics. The idea that "everything is an illusion" is a monism, denial of truth, self-refuting absurdity that destroys reason and violates the Law of Identity. Any theory that ends with that kind of result cannot be correct.Silver Asiatic_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

It essentially motivates all the positions this segment of commenters claims to hold
But
what is missing in all these criticisms is the ability to point to anything better. Before one criticizes Christianity, please point to a superior way of life. I have never seen anyone do it.
I can point to the modern world as a direct result of Christianity and freedom.jerry_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

The overt hostility towards Christianity is and has been a perpetual phenomenon for a segment of commenters here. It essentially motivates all the positions this segment of commenters claims to hold. They are unable to address ID, but they attack ID'ers like getting out of bed in the morning, every day. Andrewasauber_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Ram also insinuated that I believe in Young Earth Creationism (YEC). i.e. a 6000 year old earth. No I don't. And for most of Church history there was no such thing as Young Earth Creationism. For the most part, a strict YEC interpretation of the Bible was developed in the early 20th century.
History of Creationism - March 23, 2013 - The Creationists - By Ray Lakeman Excerpt: Creation Science (YEC) is a new movement of the twentieth century. It arose as a movement composed of trained scientists and lay Christian supporters from a wide range of Christian churches, and it has grown despite almost universal opposition from both mainstream scientists and the mainstream leaders in churches. In the early years of the twentieth century the self-described geologist George McCready Price stood virtually alone in insisting on the recent appearance of life and on a global flood catastrophe that massively rearranged the earth’s crust. Price was well-received by creationists, but made few converts beyond his Seventh Day Adventist Church. In 1932 the Evolution Protest Movement was formed in London, and is now called the Creation Science Movement, the oldest creationist society on Earth.,,, https://reasonablefaithadelaide.org.au/history-of-creationism/
Prior to that, the view that the universe was older that 6000 years old was a widely held view among Christians. For instance Lord Kelvin of thermodynamics fame, a devout Christian who opposed Darwin, is fairly famous for holding an Old Earth view, Contrary to what YEC's claim, it is simply impossible to get a strict 24 hour day, and/or a 6000 year history, out of Genesis.
Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth - Jonathan M. - 2011 Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods? Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone: 1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours). 2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day. 3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days. 4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” http://crossexamined.org/why-i-reject-a-young-earth-view-a-biblical-defense-of-an-old-earth/
As Augustine himself stated in the fifth century, ”What kind of days these were (in Genesis) it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine”
BIBLICAL REASONS TO DOUBT THE CREATION DAYS WERE 24-HOUR PERIODS - January 28, 2015 Excerpt: it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this (strict 24 hour period) interpretation. Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7). J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.” Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.” Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.” Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.” I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods,,,. https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/
So Ram, no I do not believe in YEC. And, as far a scriptural interpretation is concerned, I do not feel the least bit compromised in my Christian belief for not holding a strict YEC interpretation. In fact, I feel that my Old Earth interpretation is far more faithful to the actual Biblical text than a YEC interpretation is. And then at 300 Ram finishes his bashing of Christianity with this criticism,
“Agape your neighbor as yourself, hang all the Law and the Prophets on that.” Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31. That’s what it’s all about. Are you Christians doing that? When you start to do that, I’ll take you seriously. Everything else is verbal noise to make yourself feel better.
Well first off, it is very strange that Ram would hold the Christian moral of “Agape your neighbor as yourself," to be objectively true and yet, on the other hand, reject Christianity because we all, everyone of us, (Christians and non-Christians included), fail, on some level or other, to meet that standard of moral perfection. And although I would argue that Christianity has been the source of great benevolence for man, (i.e. charities, hospitals, orphanages, etc.. etc..), the fact that all men are morally imperfect in one way or the other, and directly contrary to what Ram may believe, is actually all the more proof that the 'fall of man' must be true. And is also proof of how much we ALL, every one of us, desperately need the purifying power of Christ's love in our lives.
1 John 3: 2-3 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.
bornagain77_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

I see that Ram, starting at 277, has made a number of statements bashing Christianity.
277: BA77: The inductive methodology of Francis Bacon, i.e. the scientific method itself, literally has the presupposition that science can answer the question of the ultimate nature and/or truth of reality built into it. Ram: It was in spite of Christianity not because of it. Dum dee dum dum.
Well, dum dee dum dum, and unsurprisingly, that is yet another false claim. As was already pointed out to Ram in post 227, (and as Ram has apparently refused to acknowledge), Francis Bacon championed the inductive methodology of the scientific method precisely because of his Christian belief in the 'fall of man' https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-why-would-a-purely-physical-universe-need-imaginary-numbers/#comment-747662 In 279 Ram made two different, rather bizarre, claims. I will address the last one first, since it relates to the previous claim
Ram: "modern science was delivered by occultists, kabbalists, and homosexuals."
And again, this yet another false claim. Modern science was born of men who were devoutly Christian in their beliefs and certainly was not born of some mystical tradition, and/or of the homosexual community in Medieval Christian Europe. In fact, rather than science being born out of some mystical tradition, Christianity had the effect of ameliorating mystical beliefs into rigid scientific disciplines, i.e. “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,,
The Christian Origins of Science - Jack Kerwick - Apr 15, 2017 Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,, Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,, In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.” He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593
At 279 Ram also asked,
Do you believe that a literal serpent talked to a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden about 6000 (give or take) years ago? Yes or no? Thanks (I wonder, as I ask the question, how embarrassed they must feel about the question, and how threatened they must feel about the question. But why feel embarrassed or threatened if reality is on your side?)
But at 213 did not Ram specifically state, "I’m not an atheist. Quite the opposite.,,, –Ram — Card-carrying member of the Sir Francis Bacon Historical Society".? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-why-would-a-purely-physical-universe-need-imaginary-numbers/#comment-747638 So since Ram does not believe in Darwinian Atheism, then that necessary means that he can not possibly believe that humans were completely unintended accidents, (as Darwinian Atheists believe). Which, by default, means that Ram must believe that humans must have been created, and/or intended, in some way, shape, or form. i.e. Which is to say. Ram, in his rejection of Darwinian atheism, must believe in some form of 'Adam and Eve" It seems that Ram and his fellow travelers, although they often take great pains to distinctly separate themselves from Darwinian atheists, never quite get around to telling us exactly how life of earth, and humans in particular, originated. Needless to say, that is a rather glaring explanatory gap for their worldview. Ram, If you could fill that glaring explanatory gap in your worldview I would certainly appreciate it. But anyways, regardless of how Ram tries to dance around this fairly direct contradiction in logic, we now have VERY good scientific evidence to believe that a literal Adam and Eve actually existed,
Jan. 2022 - Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141 November 2021 - Human evolution? - the evidence from genetics, (as well as the mathematics of population genetics itself), falsifies the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245 November 2021 - Human exceptionalism refutes Darwinian evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249 etc.. etc..
As to Ram's claim that I believe "a literal serpent talked" to Adam and Eve, well, if Ram is going to criticize what he believes to be a Biblical myth it might behoove Ram to get his supposed Biblical myth right in the first place. The serpent was not a 'literal serpent' and/or a 'literal snake' until after God cursed the serpent for deceiving Eve,
Genesis 3:13-15 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
So no, I don't believe a 'literal snake' talked to Eve. I believe God transformed whatever 'cunning creature' that deceived Eve in the garden into a snake. Of course, God transforming one creature into another creature is to be considered far more of a miraculous occurrence than some creature merely talking to Eve. But alas, the even more spectacularly 'miraculous' transformation of bacteria into all the species of life on Earth, all without God mind you, is readily accepted without even the bat of an eye by Darwinian atheists. But apparently, in Ram's book, (and since Ram never seems to get around to actually criticizing Darwinian atheism), that far more spectacular, even 'miraculous', claim from Darwinists about the endless transformation of lifeforms into other lifeforms is above all mocking and ridicule, whereas God transforming a single creature into a snake is beyond the pale and deserves to be mocked, ridiculed, and rejected on the spot. To state the obvious, this is not a fair and unbiased judgement on Ram's part. As Chesterton noted, "When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything."bornagain77_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

There is constant denigrations of the various ways that people have lived in history. Each is meant to undermine this particular way of life. By implication it means there is something better or at least as good. But what is missing in all these criticisms is the ability to point to anything better. Before one criticizes Christianity, please point to a superior way of life. I have never seen anyone do it. Christianity for centuries embraced The Great Chain of Being which is political in nature not religious. It subjected the great percentage of people to servitude. For that it could be criticized It goes back to Plato (and before) who definitely got it wrong in his Republic. When freedom is added to Christianity, nothing better has appeared in this world. The problem is that many believe there is a better way and we see that acted out today in much of the world. But nothing has proved better. So if one is going to criticize, only do so with something demonstrably better. So far in the history of the world no one has. Aside: the modern world owes its existence to the addition of freedom to Christianity. First in England and Holland and then to the English colonies and then to Western Europe.jerry_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Sandy, point, with just a hint of self reference. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Everything else is verbal noise to make yourself feel better.
Everything else is verbal noise to make yourself feel better.
Everything else is verbal noise to make yourself feel better.
Sandy_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Ram, there is abundant history showing Christians as outstanding examples of living by neighbour love, your sweeping generalisation to the contrary sounds like an excuse to dismiss by demanding an unattainable perfection. Yes, there is moral struggle we all face, yes, the course of history is too often that of recording crimes and follies. Note here Lord Acton, a Christian BTW as well as a great historian, power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely, great men are bad men. That wrong tainting the course of all civilisations has nothing to do with truth, soundness, the right; it is by these instead, that we can set out to soundly reform civilisation, and not without some effect. If you doubt me, ask the ghosts of Wilberforce, Equiano and Booth et al. Even, Duplessis-Mornay, Rutherford, Locke and the Continental Congress of 1776 who issued the call to prayer on May 17 before the declaration of July 4th. And more. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

VL, Fair comment, the only one going in circles is you. Now that I have back access and have noted on breaking news, for record: >>I have many times discussed the provisional nature of my claim, based on empirical evidence about the nature of human belief as shown through studies of comparative religion, philosophy, psychology, etc.>> 1: Yes, we are error prone, that is not in dispute (error exists is undeniable and self evident), it in fact was foundational to my earlier discussion of warrant, thus knowable objective truth, where you were found in opposition. Surprise -- NOT. 2: That noted, the issue is a point of intersection between logic and reality, the self referential incoherent cannot be true, where you have repeatedly asserted that the root of reality is unknowable, indeed, even when you have tried to reformulate in likelihood terms. I note again:
we can’t know about the root of reality seems much more likely, based on evidence, than thinking we can
3: ANS:The likelihood of an incoherent, self referentially inconsistent statement . . . an impossibility . . . remains zero, so everything after my italicised is simply error carried forward. The error remains in the italicised and bolded part and stands uncorrected. >> You dismiss those>> 4: Simple falsehood and strawman misrepresentation. 5: Indeed, this evidently traces to your earlier problem with our cognitive ability to so warrant that we may arrive at objective truth in cases where warrant succeeds. We are error prone but are not hopelessly mired in ignorance and error. >> and seem to have no understanding at all of the distinction between my statement and a “universal negative claim” that you later say I am making.>> 6: Roll the tape, above you made assertions that the root of reality is unknowable. This was corrected. You went to the provisionality claim and fail to recognise that likelihood of a self refuting impossibility is ZERO. >>You later say, “If your effective quarrel is with these [the laws of logical reasoning], your problem is with reason not my alleged assumptions.”>> 7: That seems clear, even through your provisional empirical studies show claims: you have yet to concede the force of the law of non contradiction that a self refuting claim fails -- not in the abstract, but in a concrete case where you are involved. 8: Where, assertion that goes beyond we are error prone about X to X is unknowable is a second order claim to knowledge about X, denying that knowledge about X is not in our gift. >>Once again, you PAY ABSOLUTELY NO ATTENTION TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAY!!!>> 8: Personal attack based on, ironically, your failure to notice what I have actually said above and earlier. >>Pardon my shouting, but I’ve said multiple times that I accept that the laws of logic are an essential part of our rational cognitive abilities.>> 9: Laws of logic part of our cognition is unfortunately different from that they engage the real world and in particular that reduction to absurdity for a claim H implies H is false to reality so not-H obtains. >> It would be really nice if you would acknowledge that>> 10: Note the distinction in focus I just highlighted: what is self refuting is false and fails to accurately describe reality, it is not true and its denial is true. 11: Note, this is very different from our cognitive function and its error proneness. Ironically, that error exists is a first example of self evident, absolutely known truth that overturns any claim - that we cannot know truth (likely, we cannot adequately warrant truth claims) or - that there is no accurate description of reality (= there is no truth), or - that there is no reality capable of being accurately described, etc. >>so you don’t keep bringing up the same irrelevant issue of that being in question.>> 12: Kindly note the just above as to why it remains highly relevant. I particularly note the focus shift from laws of logic regarding reality, its accurate description -- truth -- and ability to reason rightly about it based on self evident first principles, to descriptions of our cognitive function. 13: That sounds suspiciously like, the kantian ugly gulch between our inner world and the externality of things in themselves. Indeed, that is a plausible candidate for a part explanation of your remarks above. 14: F H Bradley long since replied to the kantians, for cause:
We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [--> this is the "ugly gulch" of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]
15: That seems highly relevant. 16: As for your attempt to use loaded language -- ploy -- to dismiss my correction of the self referential incoherence you have doubled down on repeatedly, F H Bradley's point should show why such is needed. 17: On scientism, SA seems to have highlighted Ram, and the corrective is in order, scientism fails. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2022
February
02
Feb
24
24
2022
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

"Agape your neighbor as yourself, hang all the Law and the Prophets on that." Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31. That's what it's all about. Are you Christians doing that? When you start to do that, I'll take you seriously. Everything else is verbal noise to make yourself feel better. --Ramram_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Good morning, Viola. Ok, it seemed like you were making a sweeping statement about responding in that you regretted posting any response at all on this thread. I see the clarification.Silver Asiatic_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

My remark was to KF, SA, not you. Your post at 297 doesn't make that clear.Viola Lee_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

VL: Who here is saying “Science is all we got?” Certainly not me, WJM, or Ram. Ram: Indeed Ram @ 279 “Take away their religion/scriptural-interpretation, and they are left with what everyone else is left with: science,. And believe me, they will whine, moan and complain, but they love science and rely on it over all as well as the rest of us. VL I should not have even bothered responding this morning. Over and out.Silver Asiatic_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

KF, you write, "VL, for cause I stand by the above. More later. KF." I wouldn't bother with more later, KF. I know we're going around in circles and are not going to reach any common understandings. I should not have even bothered responding this morning. Over and out.Viola Lee_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

KF
The third option is an epistemological one, uncertainty, which can be about something which is accurate to reality or something which is not.
Right because as you've pointed out very well so many times before, the Law of Identity requires the one and the many and thus monism fails.Silver Asiatic_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

KF
See the self referential problem there, even with the relative likelihood claim?
Right because a measure of likelihood requires a comprehensive knowledge. "Based on my extensive knowledge, I conclude that nobody can know anything about it. " That's incoherent.Silver Asiatic_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

SA, some interesting observations. The third option is an epistemological one, uncertainty, which can be about something which is accurate to reality or something which is not. But what is or is not is not what we KNOW it is what is so, it is ontological not epistemological. It seems we have a confusion of main streams in philosophy. Of course knowledge is a bridge, what is so warranted as to be credibly (and reliably) taken as true and is thus believed. One who so believes has knowledge, at least in the weak, possibly correctable sense in science, history, law and ever so many real world endeavours. This is the day to day sense where we have high, objectively warranted truth, but of course there is a stronger sense, absolutely reliable warrant, which is rare. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

VL, for cause I stand by the above. More later. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

KF
self-referential incoherence
Some examples of the same that we see frequently: * Rationality has no origin, or else it originates from an irrational source but should be (or cannot be) trusted. * There is no such thing as reality and we have the experimental science to prove it. * All that exists is just one thing (monism). That's what it is, in contrast to what you think it is. * We know that immaterial entities do not exist because physical science cannot detect them * Metaphysical concepts (like this one) are not true. They're just invented. * Literature is not interested in the truth. It's just meant to help us. * There is no truth. I'm fully convinced of this and I insist on it. * There is a third option between truth and falsehood. * There is a third option between rational intelligence and mindless irrationalitySilver Asiatic_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

KF
As to science is all we got, that seems to be a summary from SA perhaps paraphrasing, it points to scientism, that science so monopolises or dominates knowledge that anything otherwise rooted doesn’t count. As I have noted, this is an epistemologicsl, i.e. philosophical claim and refutes itself. In any case, science depends on Math, which does not work on empirical but logical methods driven by at basic level first facts, at another, axioms derived from framing such facts then setting up logic model worlds.
Exactly. This is the significant error you pointed to in your insistence on the aherence to First Principles. The denial of those, then jumping directly to a ridicule of scriptural texts just reveals an incoherent foundation for understanding reality.Silver Asiatic_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

VL: Who here is saying “Science is all we got?” Certainly not me, WJM, or Ram. Ram: Indeed Ram @ 279 "Take away their religion/scriptural-interpretation, and they are left with what everyone else is left with: science,. And believe me, they will whine, moan and complain, but they love science and rely on it over all as well as the rest of us.Silver Asiatic_{February 23, 2022
February
02
Feb
23
23
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply