At The Stream: Why IS racism wrong if Darwinism is true?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 8, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Racism}

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

Ask Darwinists — who believe that all life, and our life, and our intellects, are the waste product of random mutation and ruthless natural selection — a few simple questions. You’ll quickly encounter The Thing. It’s their answer to every question. So I wrote, in an essay (Brew a cup of coffee and read it!) aimed at college teachers. They should demand of their “Woke” students answers to each of the following:
What’s wrong with racism?
Why is inequality bad?
Why should those who enjoy the benefits of “privilege” ever surrender it?
If the results of injustice are more aesthetically pleasing to me than those of justice, why shouldn’t I choose injustice? Assuming that I can keep the whip hand, of course. Whatever answers they manage, teachers should “critique [each] response by referring strictly to Darwinian materialism. Any argument that can’t withstand that corrosive acid, toss in the trash.”
John Zmirak, “In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was with the Thing, and the Word Was the Thing” at The Stream

Here’s the essay Zmirak refers to.

Hmmm. It may be cruel to expect the young Woke to think carefully about such questions. They might be so much better adapted by their education to relieving their intellectual frustrations by smashing things.

See also: Historian Richard Weikart weighs in on Darwinian anti-Semitism in Poland. According to Weikart, unfortunately, it is not fake news. White nationalists use Darwinism and evolutionary psychology to promote their perspective.

Comments

My apologies. In the last paragraph, above, I had meant to indicate that the apparently higher development of worldly intelligence of the 'exiles', the further north they spread (though generally outside of sub-Saharan Africa), as a result of the necesity to cope with colder climes. By no means an innate inferiority. In the mosaic Law, Yahweh decreed that no-one should be punished with more than 40 lashes, "lest they become degraded in the eyes of their fellows" ; but it seems that the chattel slavery of later times inflicted on the s-S African captives by European, Jewish and Arabic merchants "merchants" has had precisely that effect. We need to see the media showing more young black lads suits and ties, and less of the 'rapping', cap back-to-front pictures of young, black lads. Their acceptance by the youth entertainment culture seems therefore a mixed blessing. All credit to the American media for having black newscasters and anchor people on the TV. It should become progressively easier to identify with them., as simply different-looking versions of ourselves ; more difficult for me.perhaps than most, having grown up as a young child before the immigration of the wonderful West Indians.Axel_{March 18, 2020
March
03
Mar
18
18
2020
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Firstly, Darwinsim is wrong, so the question is hypothetical in a way that reflects poorly on the character of the questioner ; but secondly - and for obvious reasons this is not normally spelt out - what is normally held to be the acme of fitness is the possession by an individual of a high wordly intelligence, without reference to the larger spiritual realm and its Divine Sovereign, whose criteria of human fitness for ETERNAL survival in a state of eternal bliss tends to be the antithesis of worldly wisdom, ie. spiritual wisdom, which must underpin the worldly wisdom and trasfigure it, to fit into the 'big picture'. 'Where your treasure is, there your heart is.' The manual worker may be considered to be lacking in worldly wisdom, but that is because he tends to be more strongly focused on spiritual values and priorities favoured by our still vestigial Christian culture, however informal his faith ; hence the beauty and the truth of The Beatitudes. Moreover, so sorely lacking in spiritual nous as to presume to judge the fitness of other races to survive, racist Darwinists prove themselves to be misguided, to say the least, here as elsewhere as atheists, even on a worldly level. It seems to me arguable that the most likely scenario relating to the ancestors of the black, sub-Saharan Africans today, is that they would have driven out the weaker tribes, who then dispersed across the globe. There is a saying relating to Africa, 'See Africa and die,' not disparaging but, rather, casting it as a kind of Shangri-La ; perhaps one might describe it as a land of 'low-hanging fruit', encouraging a 'come day, go day, roll on Sunday' attitude, not so inimical to spiritual sensitivity as to the materialism of the technologically-advance West. Parenthetically, it strikes me that the Australian aborigines and the Hottentots in Africa (who would have preferred desert life to exile abroad), whether good or bad individually, would be, so to speak 'natural mystics'. There is a common anecdotal perception that people with high IQs tend to be weedy, nerdy characters (such as my good self), whereas it is abundantly clear to anyone living near a fairly prestigious unversity that that would be far from being the case. In fact it is well established in surveys that people of above average height are of above aveage IQ. So, given the chance, it seems highly likely that, on a level playing-field, and given their greater spiritual sensitivity, they will give the Jewish people a run for their money, intellectually, in the course of time. As a result, therefore, of the natural bounty of sub-Saharan Africa, the progress of the black Africans in developing their natural resources would have been held back by Providence, countervailing in a sense against their egregious athleticism. Presumably, in that scenario, the rest of mankind has physically deteriorated in the meantime, but due to the challenges to survival presented by colder climates, the further North they migrated, the worldly intelligence (what we are pleased to call simply 'intelligence') has tended to be more sharply honed, making it much easier for the European, Jewish and Arabian slavers to demonically exploit them. Nothing, however, favoured the world's technological deveopment so much as the Christian origination and development of the scientific endeavour, as is so often noted on here ; indeed now via: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/myths-about-christianity-and-science-part-ii-with-mike-keas/Axel_{March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

MS, I just note that Aquinas is not to be equated to Thomists. The dumb ox fills the world with his bellowing. Nor is he merely an intellectual hero of mine, the fact is, he is one of the pivotal thinkers in the flow of intellectual history. Likewise, Moshe, Isiah, Jesus, Paul, Augustine and more. It is not merely "in a bubble," the refusal to learn from history and its predictable consequences is itself a lesson. KF PS: Heine has a lesson from 1831 -- yes, 100 years before the fact -- that predicted the true nature of Nazism and the like:
Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [--> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . do not overlook the obvious], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame [--> an irrational battle- and blood- lust]. … The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. … … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. … At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [--> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [--> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831]
kairosfocus_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

F/N -- newswatch: 80+ pax MNI on same x-Atlantic flight as the first confirmed Covid-19 ANU. Contacted, told self isolate. Gatherings of 50+ are restricted until April 3 and this may be extended. Schools are closed. Fun stuff! KFkairosfocus_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

MS, you telescoped 700 years of history in the first instance. However, by implication you acknowledged that the core theological summary of the Christian faith is in common across the fissures that have developed. That statement can be readily shown to be properly rooted in the C1 apostolic deposit. The historical circumstances also show that it cut across Constantine's personal inclinations, and won the day because of its merits. Yes, awful things have been done by people in a civilisation with strong Christian influences, with clear indications [the Nazis, the Bolsheviks] of what would further obtain if that influence is removed or decisively weakened. Amazingly, you still seem to overlook the single worst -- and ongoing -- holocaust in history. In that context, that you lump Nazism in with the Christian faith shows that you are determined to taint and refuse to acknowledge the blatant fact: cultural identity and nominal link is worlds apart from repentance, commitment and sound discipleship based transformation. That speaks also. More later, I have a potential emerging epidemic to address. KFkairosfocus_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

KF @ 184 Most of the core beliefs stayed the same, but the Church split into two separate Churches and went their separate ways. They've been warring on and off ever since. Mostly Catholics massacring Orthodox, but sometimes Muslims joined in. I think Atheist Stalin did too. I was surprised and rather appalled at the amount of murder, mayhem and outright massacre that Orthodox Christians have endured. It makes me rather contemptuous when a Christians complains loud and long because the nasty old government is insisting that he serves everybody and serving fags / blacks / Jews / whatever else walks in the door. Western Christians were killing large numbers of Eastern Christians as recently as a few decades ago. Look up what went on in WWII when the Nazis joined up with the Catholics. And don't forget former Yugoslavia a few decades ago. DEFINITELY two different religions. As for your list of intellectual heroes, they look a little different from outside the bubble. There, you will see them mostly as part of the history that led to this or that idea. I've run into too many self styled Thomists to have much use for Acquinas, but I do have a soft spot in my heart for Anselm. From what I've read of him, he was a decent man living in very turbulent times dealing with a pretty nasty king and managed to keep the body count low, plus he was reputed to like children. He also got a resolution against the English slave trade passed. What's not to like? As a philosopher, he was limited by lack of knowledge of how we think. For instance, take That than which a greater cannot be thought can be thought. The problem here is that we don't think of something too complex or great to comprehend, we create a symbol inside our head, adorn the symbol with a few references to awe and might, not to the greater thing itself, which is too complex for our tiny intellect to comprehend. Thus, the next sentence is not logically true: If that than which a greater cannot be thought can be thought, it exists in reality. But it doesn't. You can't comprehend anything you can't comprehend, you just make a symbol for this 'greater thing', point it to a few other concepts and then refer to the symbol. A symbol in your head isn't going to create anything. Your quote from Locke and Hooker is basically the Golden Rule and that's the basis of all morality. If the world ever stops falling apart around me, you'll see I base my morality on the Golden Rule too, so good on them.MatSpirit_{March 14, 2020
March
03
Mar
14
14
2020
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

MF, while the core message of the gospel is simple enough for those who have not been caught up in systems that set up crooked yardsticks as standards of what is straight and upright, it and its warrant can be extraordinarily difficult for those who have not been so privileged. Consider the case of someone convinced that the assured laws of Science forbid miracles or rule out the supernatural. A whole raft of worldviews issues surface in such a case. Likewise, those who have been taught in certain sects will perceive the text in light of that teaching and where there is error, establishing and correcting that can be difficult indeed. For example, what is the correct English reading of Jn 1:! requires reckoning with Greek language issues. Where, Koine Greek is not our native or an everyday language for us. I recall here, the hot dispute of about 40 years ago on the continued validity of spiritual gifts. Going on to other things, perhaps Peter should be allowed to speak, in the closing words of his theological will:
2 Peter 3:15 And consider the patience of our Lord [His delay in judging and avenging wrongs] as salvation [that is, allowing time for more to be saved]; just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him [by God], 16 speaking about these things as he does in all of his letters. In which there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the untaught and unstable [who have fallen into error] twist and misinterpret, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 Therefore, [let me warn you] beloved, knowing these things beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of [c]unprincipled men [who distort doctrine] and fall from your own steadfastness [of mind, knowledge, truth, and faith], 18 but grow [spiritually mature] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be glory (honor, majesty, splendor), both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. [AMP]
Not everything is simple and straightforward in itself, and even of what is, if one has worldviews and indoctrination challenges, it can be very difficult to see what is in itself simple. That is the context in which I wrote earlier. Yes, one standing in a credible tradition has a reasonable right to speak freely [e.g. a typical Sunday School teacher or lay Evangelist or even many parsons], however when one sets out to speak in his own right, one had better have done the detailed spadework to equip himself. That spadework has to address original language with a familiarity in which once one hears an issue or context, the span of scripture and relevant background springs to mind. Accurately and soundly. In short, Doctors of the church, apologists and the like need to be well grounded indeed. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

KF - So God sent his son to die for my sins, but if I am not a Greek scholar I am out of luck. So when I read in the new Testament , that Jesus is the only saviour, I must believe in him,I must confess my sins, I must repent, I must be baptised, I must then walk in a manner worthy of his calling me , that somehow I am missing something and need a Greek scholar to explain these simple verses to me so I can be saved I don`t think so. Read acts 11.14 , 1 Cor 15 . , James 1.21 . There are many many more but for now these will do.Marfin_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

PS: Some useful reading: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/hebrews-6.htmlkairosfocus_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

MF, in principle yes all that is needed is a sound reading of scripture. However, that sound reading, strictly needs to be in informed Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, informed by a corpus of scholarship as the relevant language forms and context have faded from day to day life. In that context, we will rapidly see that translations depend on quality and integrity of scholarship and that we further need to acquire a considerable body of background knowledge and deep familiarity to be able to stand up and speak in our own right with reliability. In that context, the Nicene Creed is in fact very well warranted by scripture [and it cuts across Constantine's personal views insofar as we can make out . . . deathbed baptism and that by an Arian bishop speak]. On discipleship, I find that Heb 6:1 - 2 and Ac 2:37 - 47 as well as Titus 2:11 - 14, Eph 2:8 - 10 etc need to be far better heeded. And no, I don't buy the idea that the word of the beginnings of Christ is the C1 version of the OT framework. More can be said on Constantine's mixed record but in fact the challenges that reached breaking point c 1517 were long in coming, they built up over centuries and became entangled in power politics. Similarly, the moral collapse of our civilisation has been coming for a very long time. You will see that I am starting from inescapable first duties of reasoning -- directly tied to Cicero et al and to Paul's remarks in Rom 2 and 13 which endorse a core of moral government being written in our hearts -- to help us go back to roots. The pattern of distractive arguments above is implicit testimony on the force of the point. We are morally governed, starting with our intelligence and rationality. This points to the root of reality and it frames a needed reformation. Which will always be resisted. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Matspirit- When you are telling us plebs what morality is don`t forget to include how you know your definition is correct , and how you tested said definition to come to said conclusion. And also if you believe that what Constantine or others of his ilk set up was anything to do with true Christianity boy you know so little about Christianity. All you need to be a christian today is like all we ever needed over the last 2000 years, Gods word , which now resides in the new testament. Anyone in the world can pick up a copy read it, obey it, and become a christian , no rulers needed.Marfin_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

PPPS: MS, do you not see how your arguments inescapably pivot on the identified first duties of reason? See how a first principle level core truth acts? The issue you need to address, then is those first duties and where they point. That is what is decisive.kairosfocus_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

PPS: Most criminals tend to be working class but generally they are not the bulk of the homeless. In the US, the homelessness problem is directly tied to ill advised closure of institutional care of the mentally disturbed and to the impact of drugs and alcohol. It remains the case that in a community where 4/5 or so have identity with the dominant nominal cultural religious identity, across classes -- it is denominations and sects that will more reflect the class pattern -- nominal Christian identity will naturally dominate all sorts of statistics. Mix that with the wheat and tares pattern and it will be clear that there is a world of difference between serious commitment and discipleship [and proxies for this] and nominal affinity. Such is obvious, the significant issue is why the resistance and why statistics have been abused to try to project the notion that the Christian faith is fundamentally morally corrupt and corrupting. The answer is equally obvious, as that faith is the last remaining champion of objective morality in our civilisation so agit prop tactics are being used to try to undermine its influence. What is being distracted from, is the core reason why responsible, rational, significantly free creatures will be under built in government of first duties and wider natural law. Which, historically, has been the breakthrough framework for modern liberty and constitutional democracy. Such will not end well.kairosfocus_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

MS, you are beating a dead horse. If you do not recognise that there is a world of difference between basic nominal, cultural identity and serious, life transforming commitment, you have missed the point of say wheat vs tares, much less the obvious socio-cultural dynamics at work and leading to the structure of statistics that are being abused. Worse, such is in service to distracting from an indubitable worldviews challenge that has faced evolutionary materialism since Plato's day, and which has haunted power systems on and off ever since. KF PS: I again point out Plato's un-answered warning:
Ath [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], 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] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> 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 and law: 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") . . . ]
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].
kairosfocus_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

MS, with all respect, you have missed the essential points. Start with, there was no splitting of the core faith, as the in-common Nicene Creed -- largely based on 1 Cor 15, with Rom 1, Jn 1, Col 1 and Heb 1 playing key roles -- shows. Notice, too, how close the Apostle's creed, which was never hammered out in a council but reflects centuries of tradition, is. There were indeed two main splits, none of them regarding core theology, 1054 and 1517 on -- that's at least 700 and about 1300 years on past Constantine's day. These splits have more to do with sinful errors, abuses due to autocratic and oligarchic power structures, stubbornness, needless polarisation and the like than with core substance. Shameful, but precisely the wheat and tares pattern as Jesus foretold. As to B-team, no informed person would take the likes of Anselm, or Augustine of Hippo, or Jerome, or Augustine the lesser (key missionary to Britain) or a Patrick or a Gregory or later on an Aquinas as inferior. A Boethius though less well known, speaks eloquently to the period after the collapse of Roman power in the W and the linked rise of Germanic kings. There was collapse, due to pandemics, economic decline, barbarian invasions and military defeats, but that did not turn the Western branches of the faith into inferior, essentially heretical and false versions of the faith. Errors, sins and eras of wrong in power, yes, fundamental erosion of the core, no. And for sure, the shifting of the main capital did not set up the decline. The military-economic-political situation of Rome was fundamentally unsustainable, reflected in the failure of the Republic and resort to Empire by c 50 BC. By 9 AD, defeat and destruction of three legions in Germany [under Augustus] meant that they would not gain the lands and people of Germany and shorter river lines. The long strategic defence simply slowed the process, meanwhile inflation turned the silver denarius into the copper penny. At a certain point when fresh issues were made the government insisted on taxes being paid in older issue; Gresham's law on steroids. In the 200's the empire nearly collapsed and was restored by an Arab queen. The logistics, military challenges and communication difficulties drove the decision to restructure core government on the four emperor system, only to feed into the longstanding problem of civil wars and coups. Such is of course part of the ferment that guided thinkers such as Locke and the American framers and founders, as well as those who hammered out the underlying double covenant view of nationhood and government under God, with natural law for morally governed creatures as the stable framework in which civil law has objective reference. This is the root of modern liberty and representational, constitutional democracy. That's why Locke cites Anglican canon Richard Hooker in a key passage in Ch 2 of his second essay on Civil Government, and it is why a pope highly praised the same work, Ecclesiastical Polity. Let me quote:
[Locke, 2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
You have exaggerated differences and have implied or suggested a fundamental heretical inferiority that is not justified. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 158 Thanks for the ample response. It must have taken a couple of minutes to cut and paste it. I agree completely with Heina Dadabhoy about who gets jailed and for what. That's what us liberals have been telling you for years now, but you conservatives keep blowing us away. Meanwhile, there are people serving life sentences for marijuana while you live in a city dotted with legal dispensaries that will sell you all the weed you can consume. What I don't understand is why you argue that atheists are smarter and better educated than theists as if that was some kind of point in your favor! The Conservapedia links are a little - about what you'd expect from Conservapedia. And the Theodore Beale / Vox Day quotes are always appreciated. The Van Til quote is just him slagging his opponants. He might as well call atheists poopy-faces. In some message, you recommended a book, "Who Really Cares". I found a used copy on Amazon for $1.99, so I ordered it. I think I remember reading some reviews of it when it came out about 15 years ago and if I remember right, he got a lot of criticism. Things like counting all the money you give to the church as a charitable contribution when most of it goes to paying for the church and pastor, which benefits you. I'll see when the book arrives. KF and BA You're both using the No True Scotsman fallacy. When you use things like how often a person goes to church as a criteria for religiosity, you're tilting your sample more to people who are living more stable lives. Homeless people seldom go to church, for instance and they're more likely to receive charity than give it. And becoming integrated into just about any group helps you enormously. Speaking of that, I'm working on a message laying out what morality is, what it's for and why we have it, but tigers, leopards and eagles don't. But for now, sleep.MatSpirit_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

KF @ 152 Thanks for the history lesson and thanks for confirming what I wrote. The Emperor moved his capital to Constantinople and left the dregs in dirty old worn out Rome, along with the junior Emperor. The A-Team eventually morphed into the various Orthodox faiths and the B-Team morphed into the various Catholic-Protestant faiths.MatSpirit_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

Vivid, inescapable, and objective does not mean not passing through the subjectivity of subjects but rather well warranted transcending that subjectivity. Thus, meeting requisites of right reason and of prudence. KFkairosfocus_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

KF “Go ahead, try [start with eliminating your “does not FOLLOW” — an appeal to right reason and “objective”]: ________” Game set match!! Well done Vividvividbleau_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

PS: Do we need to go over yet again, evidence that our cosmos is fine tuned? Or, that an infinite succession of finite stage causal steps is an infeasible super task? That circular cause is incoherent? I trust these will be fairly obvious by now.kairosfocus_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

EG, Immediately, you put the cart before the horse. It is manifest, even from your own arguments that an inescapable underlying premise is that such arguments and reasoning depend on first duties of reason. No prior worldview assumptions are present, this is an observation. If you don't accept that inescapability, simply try to persuade us of the cogency of your argument:
If you want to say that your ability to reason is objectively true, I can accept that . . . But to then say that the moral values (duties) that we derive from this ability to reason must also be objective does not follow. Most of us desire to live in a society. Given this desire, I can use my ability to reason to determine that it is most likely in my long-term best interest not to kill, not to steal, not to lie in most cases, to help others, etc.
. . . without implicitly appealing to duties to truth, right reason, prudence [so, warrant], sound conscience, fairness & justice, etc. Where, objectivity, of course, has to do with having adequate warrant to accept that a claim is true or at least reliable; an expression of prudence. Go ahead, try [start with eliminating your "does not FOLLOW" -- an appeal to right reason and "objective"]: ________ Your argument falls apart instantly. See the point and how this transcends the limitations of subjectivity of any one individual, group or community? In short, the inescapability of first duties is not only objective but is self-evident. Truth, is accurate description of reality, ignoring which, or distorting which, is manifest folly, error or deceit, with dangerous consequences lurking. Prudence is pivotal as we may err. Right reason is about how we best reason. Sound conscience, fairness and justice are pivotal for responsible freedom. Such moral government, we simply cannot evade, and those who try show themselves to be of no credibility. Yes, such do raise reality root issues in a world of discussion involving Hume's guillotine, the so-called Euthyphro dilemma and more centrally the is-ought gap. Such, are meta issues of significance but they arise from observing something as simple as how we quarrel and disagree generally. It is fairly obvious from your reaction that refusal to acknowledge that it is reasonable to take the inescapable as true traces to your resistance to the onward point that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged in the root of reality and that root therefore needs to be -- capable of being a source of worlds [that's infinite regress and circularity avoidance], -- independent being [i.e. not subject to external cause, necessary, of whatever character], -- credibly capable of being source of a world fine tuned for cell based, C chem, aqueous medium life [which points to designer], -- inherently good and utterly wise [to bridge is and ought]. We can take it to the bank that your resistance to the inescapable is rooted in your rejection of what it points to. So, you prefer to embrace incoherence, chaos on the life of reason etc. Telling. KFkairosfocus_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Opinions are not arguments. Arbitrary subjective opinion carry no interpersonal moral obligation. If all we have in the moral realm are subjective opinions to ground moral truth then there is no possibility of finding moral truth or any kind of common ground or consensus. If all we have are arbitrary subjective opinions the very idea of universal human rights completely collapses. Indeed I think that is what we are seeing is the west. Already in the U.S. there are numerous example of fundamental human rights being undermined or abridged for the sake of new made-up rights. For example, florists, bakers and photographers being fined for not participating in a same sex wedding. “Same-sex marriage” is an idea that has been arbitrarily made up whole cloth by the secular progressive left in that last 50 years. It has absolutely no basis in history, tradition or biology-- neither two men nor two women cannot make a baby. However, it is a way for the secular progressive left to carry out its anti-religious agenda. After all where do most people get married? In churches, don’t they? One of the fastest ways to destroy religion is to subvert it. SSM is an example of that.john_a_designer_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Wow. Michael Ruse and I agree on something: "If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. ...The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer." Hey EG! If Michael Ruse and I agree on something, then maybe you should pay attention. Why are you trying to convince more people to go down a path that even MR says will lead to collapse??EDTA_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

@John_a_designer:
Morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator. Michael Ruse.
-Well, then our genes and evolution are absolutely pathetic, because they are always trying to cheat on us, but our naturalist fellas ALWAYS escape the cheating. Not that they find it strange, of course. And this Ruse is a philosopher. Sigh. - Of course being a social cooperator is good, because it helps us to achieve...nothing. Never forget that for the naturalist, nothing is magical. Nothing sprang the whole Universe, for no reason. There is no purpose, no goal, and nothing matters. Nothing in the beginning, nothing in the end. Nothing, nothing, nothing.Truthfreedom_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

@158 Bornagain77:
In short, the atheists on UD, in their false claim that atheists are more moral than Christians, have, once again, shot themselves squarely in their collective foot and issued a blatantly self-refuting argument.
Spot on. Materialism is self-refuting. It always has, it will always be.Truthfreedom_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie:
Most of us desire to live in a society.
Based on what?
Given this desire, I can use my ability to reason to determine that it is most likely in my long-term best interest not to kill, not to steal, not to lie in most cases, to help others, etc.
You don't have an ability to reason. And there are plenty of people who think society is great because they get to kill, steal and lie to get whatever they want.
I simply don’t see a need to impose the need for some designer to feed me these values.
Except you wouldn't have those values without the existence of an intelligent designer. That you fail to understand that is a mystery to me.ET_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Here are some quotes from an online article by the unapologetic Darwinian apologist, Michael Ruse:
Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: "Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bullshit, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me." The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer. So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective… [M]orality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/15/morality-evolution-philosophy However, if morality is just an illusion, and I know and believe this as Ruse does, then I don’t have any real moral obligation towards my fellow man nor should I expect that anyone is obligated to treat me “morally” in return. Morality in such a society would be superfluous if not totally meaningless. The surest way to cause the collapse of civilization is to convince a majority or even a large minority of people that Ruse is right-- “morality is an illusion.”john_a_designer_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

KF
EG, you expect us to implicitly rely on said duties in order for your arguments to have any convincing power; such duties are then reflexive as well.
If you want to say that your ability to reason is objectively true, I can accept that. Some are very good at it, and some are like ET. :) But to then say that the moral values (duties) that we derive from this ability to reason must also be objective does not follow. Most of us desire to live in a society. Given this desire, I can use my ability to reason to determine that it is most likely in my long-term best interest not to kill, not to steal, not to lie in most cases, to help others, etc. I simply don't see a need to impose the need for some designer to feed me these values. The fact that you do is a mystery to me.
Indeed, you have just told us not to take anything you say with any degree of trust or credit. KF
I can't do anything about that. You either think my observations and conclusions are correct or you don't. I am comfortable either way.Ed George_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Without real Justice and the real existence of some kind of common good there is no basis for a fair or just society. Nor is there a basis for universal human rights.
Any authentic right is grounded in and thus limited by the demands of justice and common good. That’s what a sound philosophy of rights will show. And that’s why “rights talk” won’t provide solutions for a society that is unable or unwilling to consider justice and common good.
https://twitter.com/RyanTAnd/status/1227939325922480128 Moral subjectivists deny the existence of real justice, so how can their world view (their thinking and beliefs) lead to a Just society or a society that has respect for fundamental human rights? It’s irrational and hypocritical for them to talk about human rights. All such talk is little more than mindless pretension and posturing.john_a_designer_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

@168 John_a_designer: Having read your post, we do agree then. Animals deserve respect and protection. Unnecesarly harming them is cruel. I live in a country where bullfighting is sanctioned and promoted. (By certain sectors of the population). I find it soul crushing.Truthfreedom_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply