Culture Darwinism Ethics Intelligent Design

But why need a Darwinist care about fairness in hiring?

Spread the love

If so many of us are talking about Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s moral philosophy anyway, here’s an illustration of the conundrum it creates. Jerry is concerned about unfairness in diversity hiring. Why?:

While I favor a form of affirmative action to increase diversity in hiring, I objected to the diversity-statement procedure because it not only demands adherence to a specific ideology (candidates’ diversity statements were scored on a point system, with higher points given to those whose statements matched the philosophy of the evaluators), but also gives the diversity statement priority over all other qualifications: if a candidate’s diversity score didn’t meet or exceed the cutoff threshold of 11 points, the application was discarded without further review.

This procedure is unfair because of its use of an ideological test, because it doesn’t count other “outreach” activities that are valuable but don’t promote diversity (e.g., giving talks to high school children, writing popular articles on science), and because it bars minority candidates who haven’t engaged in diversity-promoting activities before they apply for jobs.

Imagine, for example, an African-American scholar who has spent her time with her nose to the grindstone, accumulating an admirable academic and teaching record without having had the time or the will to promote diversity. As valuable as she would be to a department—and believe me, universities are desperately looking for good minority candidates—she wouldn’t have a chance of being hired under this “threshold” process. (Such scholars exist, for I know of some.) I find this process ludicrous and counterproductive, as I find the use of all mandatory diversity statements.

Jerry Coyne, “ NIH gets into the game of requiring job candidates to show track records of promoting diversity” at Why Evolution is True

But if the Darwinian view of morality is correct, might makes right and the big bugs make the rules. Who’s to say that theirs not a good system?

Of course it’s not good for the African American scholar who knows her stuff; it may be just fine, however, for the underqualified personality-about-campus who spouts diversity theory. Who is to choose between the two? How?

Without acknowledgement of a higher order than nature, there is no such thing as justice.

Nature?


“So careful of the type?” but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She cries, “A thousand types are gone:
I care for nothing, all shall go.
“Thou makest thine appeal to me:
I bring to life, I bring to death:
The spirit does but mean the breath:
I know no more.” …


See also: Jerry Coyne and the contradictions of Darwinian morality. Being a Darwinist means never having to address inner contradictions. No one who matters asks.

33 Replies to “But why need a Darwinist care about fairness in hiring?

  1. 1
    Ed George says:

    Without acknowledgement of a higher order than nature, there is no such thing as justice.

    Justice is defined by society. Society says that I can’t run a red light. Where is the higher order in this choice?

    Humans have a reasoning ability and the ability to predict potential consequences for possible actions. You can argue that these capabilities are the result of some higher power, and you may be correct. But if they are the result of a higher power, there is no need to impose another level of oversight with regard to morality and justice. Rational thought and the ability to predict consequences of actions is all that is needed for people in society to establish a system of justice.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    “Justice is defined by society.”

    Hmm, I wonder if the holocaust victims would have agreed with E.G.?

  3. 3
    Ed George says:

    BS77

    Hmm, I wonder if the holocaust victims would have agreed with E.G.?

    I wonder if BS77 would claim that the Jewish people aren’t part of society.

  4. 4
    john_a_designer says:

    Contemporary secular progressives are typically moral and epistemological subjectivists who try to first illegitimately coopt and then exploit the concept of universal human rights. However, by definition a universal human right is something that every human being is obligated to respect. Therefore, reason tells us that it must have some basis in objective fact. How then am I obligated to respect a so-called right that I know has been made up whole cloth by some moral subjectivist?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George (with a ad hominem thrown into the mix) asks:

    I wonder if BS77 would claim that the Jewish people aren’t part of society(?).

    First to define society:

    so·ci·e·ty
    noun
    1. the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
    ,, 3, : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

    Apparently Ed George is ignorant of the fact that the Jewish people were legally denied the status of ‘personhood’ within German society. And thus were, legally, denied to be a part of German society.

    The introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws in 1935 saw Jews declared non-persons, stripped of their rights, robbed of their property and isolated.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....-Jews.html

    8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity – July 02, 2014
    Excerpt: According to Ernst Fraenkel, a German legal scholar, the Reichsgericht, the highest court in Germany, was instrumental in depriving Jewish people of their legal rights. In a 1936 Supreme Court decision, “the Reichsgericht refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense.”
    Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans to justify exterminating them.
    https://cultureshiftforlife.com/2014/07/09/8-horrific-times-people-groups-were-denied-their-humanity/

    E.G. needs a objective moral foundation in order to try to make his ‘societal morality’ universally binding for all men, But alas, his atheism simply denies him any objective moral foundation

    If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

    The Moral Argument (for God) – Dr. Craig – animated video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

  6. 6
    Ed George says:

    Apparently Ed George is ignorant of the fact that the Jewish people were legally denied the status of ‘personhood’ within German society. And thus were, legally, denied to be a part of German society.

    Apparently BA77 is ignorant of the fact that prior to 1971 women in the US were legally denied equal treatment under the law. A quarter century after Jews were legally granted equal treatment in the former Nazi Germany.

  7. 7
    BobRyan says:

    Ed George @ 1 state:

    “Humans have a reasoning ability and the ability to predict potential consequences for possible actions.”

    This is the exact opposite of evolutionary view. Humans are nothing more than animals and should be treated as such. Pavlov believed there was no difference between experimenting on dogs and experimenting on children. One animal is the same as another.

    By your own words, you put humans as a distinct and unique species. Logic and prediction does not exist in nature at all. All animals are what their nature dictates them to be, but humans have never been limited to what governs all other life.

  8. 8
    Truthfreedom says:

    BobRyan

    By your own words, you put humans as a distinct and unique species.

    They always do.
    We humans are “nothing special, just another animal”,
    BUT we are “different” and “special”.
    Materialism is always contradictory.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George at 6 states,

    prior to 1971 women in the US were legally denied equal treatment under the law. A quarter century after Jews were legally granted equal treatment in the former Nazi Germany.

    And yet prior to that E.G. denied that there was a “higher order than nature” and claimed that “Justice is defined by society.”

    News: Without acknowledgement of a higher order than nature, there is no such thing as justice.

    E.G. Justice is defined by society.

    So since American society played a central role in WWII in making German society finally see the light that Jewish people deserved equal treatment under the law, and since America finally saw the light and granted women equal treatment under the law, just where did American society get this notion of equality for all men and women?

    E.G. has no answer for this question. E.G. is an atheist who explicitly denies that there is a ‘higher order than nature’,

    Yet ‘nature’ in general, and Darwinian evolution in particular, certainly did not give America this notion of equality. In fact, racism is woven into the fabric of Darwinian evolution. In fact, the full title of Darwin’s book ‘Origin of Species’ is “On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.

    And in his subsequent book, ‘The Descent Of Man’, Charles Darwin more explicitly stated the racism inherent in his supposedly ‘scientific theory’ as such:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

    I have no idea how Charles Darwin, who was decidedly non-racist in his personal life, could not recoil in horror at the overt racist implications of his supposedly scientific theory, that he himself so clearly elucidated, and reject his theory outright, on the spot, as being an utterly false view of humanity.

    Darwin simply has no excuse for failing to see this fatal moral flaw in his theory, He was warned, by none other than Adam Sedgwick, of the extreme danger that his unscientific, and amoral, theory presented for society at large when his book was first published, Specifically, he was warned by Sedgwick that “humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.”

    From Adam Sedgwick 24 November 18591
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin
    Excerpt: There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    As well, according to Darwin’s theory, women were also to be considered biologically and intellectually inferior to men,

    Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued –
    “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”
    In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective.
    As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.”
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....of-terror/

    So again, since Nature in general, and Darwinian evolution in general, certainly did not give us this notion of equality just where did American society get its notion of equality for all men and women?

    Well, as any grade schooler can tell you, the notion of equality comes from God and is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    – Thomas Jefferson – 1776
    The Declaration of Independence
    Second Continental Congress
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    In short, E.G. argument fails spectacularly. The basic equality and dignity of all men and women in a society cannot possibly be based in nature and/or in Darwinian evolution, but must be based in the ‘self evidently true’ objective morality that is inherent in God.

    Verse and Music:

    Galatians 3:28
    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Numbers 12:1 & 9-10
    And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.,,,
    The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.
    When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous —it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

    Mandisa – Esther – Born For This – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxFCber4TDo

  10. 10
    Truthfreedom says:

    @9 Bornagain77:

    … just where did American society get this notion of equality for all men and women?

    Apparently, it was “out there”, “hanging in the air”. Our brains “accidentally” “pick up” “concepts”.
    Fermions and bosons are amazing, aren’t they?

  11. 11
    Truthfreedom says:

    Oh, and “Human Rights” are an illusion. Evolution has “fooled” us again, because we see patterns where there are none.
    Evolution always “fools” us, thank darwin we have evolution to understand NO-THING.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    “Ed George”

    Humans have a reasoning ability and the ability to predict potential consequences for possible actions.

    The sheer number of abortions proves you wrong.

    Rational thought and the ability to predict consequences of actions is all that is needed for people in society to establish a system of justice.

    And again the sheer number of abortions proves that you don’t know what you are talking about.

  13. 13
    BobRyan says:

    Truthfreedom @ 8
    “Materialism is always contradictory.”
    It’s a shame materialists are emotionally attached to a philosophy claiming to be science. That emotional attachment makes it impossible to see reason and they can never view themselves as contradictory. They are devoted to the altar of Darwin and have a cult mindset.

  14. 14
    AaronS1978 says:

    I never really understood the whole human race thing and trying to make sure everything is equal under the idea of Darwinian evolution, but nothing is equal under Darwinian evolution, it’s survival of the fittest, That’s why it’s inherently racist, it is the fittest race that will survive, it is the fittest species that will survive and everybody wants to be the fittest.

    Furthermore if everything is pre-programmed into us we were some form of evolution and cultural priming, why in the world does anybody then care about other human rights

    It should literally only be about personal rights and continuing to survive

    I just don’t get it I don’t understand Jerry Coyne’s perspective, Everything is equal only because everything’s ultimately meaningless but nothings equal because that’s how evolution and natural selection works

  15. 15
    AaronS1978 says:

    Oops wrong thread I was really tired this morning 🙂

  16. 16
    aarceng says:

    Ed George @ 1
    “Justice is defined by society. Society says that I can’t run a red light. Where is the higher order in this choice? ”
    This law helps to prevent traffic accidents and consequent injury and death to people. This is a reflection of the higher order value we place on human life. That’s where it is.

  17. 17
    Ed George says:

    Aarceng

    This law helps to prevent traffic accidents and consequent injury and death to people. This is a reflection of the higher order value we place on human life. That’s where it is.

    I don’t need a higher order to not want to be injured or killed in a traffic accident.

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 9

    So since American society played a central role in WWII in making German society finally see the light that Jewish people deserved equal treatment under the law, and since America finally saw the light and granted women equal treatment under the law, just where did American society get this notion of equality for all men and women?

    John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu etc,…

    E.G. has no answer for this question. E.G. is an atheist who explicitly denies that there is a ‘higher order than nature’

    I tend to agree with him.

    Yet ‘nature’ in general, and Darwinian evolution in particular, certainly did not give America this notion of equality. In fact, racism is woven into the fabric of Darwinian evolution. In fact, the full title of Darwin’s book ‘Origin of Species’ is “On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.”

    ‘Race’ in Darwin’s day meant something more like ‘strain’ as in something like a “strain of tomatoes”

    But, if you want some good racist polemic, try this:

    “What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews”:[1]

    “First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …”
    “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”
    “Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.”
    “Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …”
    “Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …”
    “Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …”
    “Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …”

    In case you didn’t know, that passage is from On the Jews and their lies, written by the pioneer of the Christian Reformation, Martin Luther, and published 325 years before the publication of On The Origin of Species. Human beings were being racist long before Darwin. It didn’t take science to bring out the worst in human nature. Religion did just as well.

    I have no idea how Charles Darwin, who was decidedly non-racist in his personal life, could not recoil in horror at the overt racist implications of his supposedly scientific theory, that he himself so clearly elucidated, and reject his theory outright, on the spot, as being an utterly false view of humanity.

    He most probably didn’t anticipate the horrors his theory would be perverted to justify. Not that it matters. Those perversions have no bearing on the scientific value of his work. To argue that would be to commit a well-known logical fallacy. How many of our logical contributors here know which one that might be?

    Darwin simply has no excuse for failing to see this fatal moral flaw in his theory, He was warned, by none other than Adam Sedgwick, of the extreme danger that his unscientific, and amoral, theory presented for society at large when his book was first published, Specifically, he was warned by Sedgwick that “humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.”

    Darwin’s theory was intended to explain how life had changed and diversified over time. It had absolutely nothing to do with ethics or morality. And Sedgwick’s nonsense commits the same logical fallacy alluded to earlier.

    So again, since Nature in general, and Darwinian evolution in general, certainly did not give us this notion of equality just where did American society get its notion of equality for all men and women?

    John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu etc,…

    Well, as any grade schooler can tell you, the notion of equality comes from God

    I don’t think the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites or citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah noticed much in the way of equality of treatment, except maybe in being the victims of atrocities.

    and is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence

    A fine piece of aspirational rhetoric but the reality was that this sort of equality was denied to African-American slaves, Native Americans, Chinese immigrant labor and women. I’m sure they meant well but plainly good intentions were not enough.

    In short, E.G. argument fails spectacularly. The basic equality and dignity of all men and women in a society cannot possibly be based in nature and/or in Darwinian evolution, but must be based in the ‘self evidently true’ objective morality that is inherent in God.

    Once again the theory of evolution is not about morality. You cannot derive ‘ought’ (morality) from ‘is'(nature). As for God’s morality, noting the fact that even He strays from the straight and narrow on occasion, what reason do you have for thinking His morality is any better than any other individual’s? He never gives any detailed justifications for His moral edicts, we’re just supposed to take it on trust? Why should that be? Aren’t you even the slightest bit curious about that? Does your scientific curiosity stop short a the church’s door?

  19. 19
    Truthfreedom says:

    @18 Seversky

    Those perversions have no bearing on the scientific value of his work.

    The scientific value of “evolution” is Zero.

    You cannot derive ‘ought’ (morality) from ‘is'(nature)

    This again? EVERYTHING is ‘Nature’. We humans are ‘Nature’. You are always trying to get away with this nonsensical distinction.
    Again you are implying that there is something “different” when humans enter the scene.
    We “are” ‘Nature’ but wait… we are not.
    Equal but different.
    Animals but not like the other animals.
    No purpose but purpose.
    Etc, etc, etc…

  20. 20
    Ed George says:

    Sev@18, very good and fair response. Euclid’s, Newton’s, Einstein’s, Darwin’s, Curie’s, Ampere’, Tesla’s, Archimedes’s, Bell’s, Bernoulli’s, Bohr’s, Boyle’s, Chadwick’s, Dalton’s, Faraday’s, Hertz’, Mendel’s, Nobel’s, Rutherford’s, Skinner’s, and Watt’s discoveries have all been used for what most of us would consider to be “evil” purposes. Yet the only one who seems to capture the imagination (or lack there of) of commenters here is Darwin. And not for his work on earthworms, or corals, or…

  21. 21
    BobRyan says:

    Seversy @ 18

    “‘Race’ in Darwin’s day meant something more like ‘strain’ as in something like a “strain of tomatoes.”

    It’s clear from your statement you have never read Darwin’s ‘Decent of Man’ and have no idea that he referred to civilized and savage races. He viewed himself as part of the civilized race and believed Africans and Australians were savage races. His second book makes it very clear that the civilized races will exterminate the savage races in the near future. Hitler tried to fulfill what Darwin predicted.

  22. 22
    Truthfreedom says:

    @BobRyan 21

    It’s clear from your statement you have never read Darwin’s ‘Decent of Man’ 🙂

    He probably did, and conveniently re-wrote the more obscure verses on his mind.
    We know atheists’ map to reality is not a very accurate one.
    They pride themselves in their hallucinations, queer “reality”, quantum gobbledygook and Matrix nonsense.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/our-brains-did-not-evolve-to-know-facts-about-science/
    Ah, and: unicorns, fairies, monkeys using typewriters, “flying teapots”, “self”-generating universes, “spaghetti monsters” pathetism, etc, etc.
    These are the intellectuals of our time.
    They are trapped in a childish bizarre fantasy.
    Thank God we have God.

  23. 23
    Truthfreedom says:

    Atheists are the “tough ones” who do not seek “comfort” and “accept reality as it is”. Their macho bravado is just a pose.
    They accept nothing and pout, complain and stomp their feet.
    “There is suffering in the world, duuude, it is not fair, I deserve mooore”.
    Imagine we are hallucinations and things appear designed and multiverses are cool and we are non persons/ meat-robots.

  24. 24
    Seversky says:

    Darwin saw with his own eyes what was being done the the so-called “savage” races by the so-called “civilized” races in their colonial fiefdoms. And the “civilized” races, who treated the African peoples, the Aborigines in Australia or the Maori in New Zealand so atrociously, would almost to a man have declared themselves to be Christian. Just like the earlier Conquistadores who ravaged Southern and Central America. The human race didn’t have to wait for Darwin to come along to provide justification for trying to exterminate each other. It’s been at it for thousands of years and religions provided ample justification for their violence to all those previous generations.

  25. 25
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky @ 24

    You say so-called civilized, but Darwin did not include the so-called part anywhere in any of his works. He viewed man as nothing more than another species of animal and had no problem with the idea of extermination of the savage races. The civilized races were the stronger and the strong was meant to dominate the weak. If savage races are brought to extinction by the civilized, then it was better for man as a whole.

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

    Charles Darwin – Descent of Man

  26. 26
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ BobRyan

    If savage races are brought to extinction by the civilized, then it was better for man as a whole.

    Hitler was a pious Darwin’s student.

  27. 27
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Rosenberg:
    Darwin’s nihilistic idea: Evolution and the meaninglessness of life

    Evolution is nihilism.
    That’s why we can’t really have much of a discussion with anyone here. What is there to say about nihilism?
    Rosenberg found a way to write some papers and books, but he’s just telling everyone that they need to be more consistent. It’s nihilism. Nothing. No purpose, no meaning.

    the universe and life are pointless….Pointless in the sense that there is no externally imposed purpose or point in the universe. As atheists this is something that is manifestly true to us. J. Coyne

  28. 28
    Truthfreedom says:

    As atheists this is something that is manifestly true to us. j. coyne

    jerry, jerry, jerry… Our brains were not shaped for “truth”. You evolutionists always forget to add the *coda*: “this is the fallible opinion of some random brain. It is not meant to be taken seriously”.
    But that sounds pathetic and your massive and REAL ego can not accept it.

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    TF

    “this is the fallible opinion of some random brain. It is not meant to be taken seriously”.
    But that sounds pathetic and your massive and REAL ego can not accept it.

    Rosenberg is probably the most consistent of that bunch. He just says it’s all nihilism from beginning to end. But why bother teaching people who are biologically determined to believe whatever? So, he contradicts himself also.
    You’re right – it’s the egoism that drives all of it.
    There’s no way for an atheist to really practice humility since they are the god of their own universe.

  30. 30
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ Silver Asiatic:

    But why bother teaching people who are biologically determined to believe whatever?

    I think he could try the tactic: “I was biologically determined to teach them?”

  31. 31
    Silver Asiatic says:

    TF

    True. He can justify any behavior and its opposite with that concept.

  32. 32
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ Silver Asiatic:
    That is why I have always thought that the “experiments to prove/ disprove free will” do not make sense.
    Do they? 🙂

  33. 33
    Silver Asiatic says:

    TF
    True. You’d have to begin by denying that universals, abstracted from reality (not “this tree” but “trees”) are immaterial concepts that actually exist. We compare and make judgements about universal, immaterial concepts – and that cannot be determined by material forces.
    Then you have to deny human reason and simply claim that chemicals mindlessly move through logical processes.

Leave a Reply