Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Few want to hear this but … Darwinism made racism science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A retired surgeon offers some thoughts about John West’s Darwin Day in America (2014, second edition):

At first glance, it might seem that whether we believe in evolution as a purely material, unguided process should make no difference to values or morality. Yet, in his 2007 book Darwin Day in America: How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, Discovery Institute’s John West looks at the question more deeply and shows otherwise. In a nearly encyclopedic manner, he documents the numerous impacts Darwinism has had in the public square. It has had a distinctively destructive effect on our society. Dr. West provides a plethora of examples in each chapter of how Darwinism has changed the courts, the schools, the medical establishment, the conduct of the scientific community, and, indeed, the man on the street.

A War of Worldviews

As the book shows, Darwinism is a Weltanschauung at war with the Judeo-Christian theistic system on which Western civilization and scientific inquiry are based. Many of Dr. West’s examples were unknown to me, and will be news to many other readers. In a skillful and scholarly fashion, he unearths the contest between faith and “science,” while providing references for any claims that he makes. The book is divided into sections, with each oriented around a specific theme. I’ll be as brief as possible in this two-part review.

Kenneth Feucht, “Darwinism and the “So What?” Question: John West’s Darwin Day in America” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 25, 2022)

See, some of us go well back into the 1950s. Darwinism was conveyed in the culture in a way that reinforced racism (like, there were three human “races,” did you know?). As it happened, most of us had little contact with the other two.

For reasons familiar to anyone who follows human psychology, our group was supposed to be the smartest. We were told to be nice to the others anyway. They couldn’t help their stupidity, nor could we.

That was the view smart people had. Stupid Fundamentalists, by contrast, still believed in Adam and Eve…

Most of the legal issues around “race” that we addressed in those days were complicated by Indigenous status or women’s rights (or lack thereof), which is not the same thing as “race.” It was a legal issue in Canada who was or wasn’t entitled to be considered a “registered” Indigenous person and what benefits that such a status did or did not confer. It really didn’t affect our overall assumptions about “race” in general. The implicit assumptions around such ideas were conveyed in the culture.

Comments
Do you have any concrete examples?
Are you conscious? Apparently not. No one viewing the current world could possibly make such a ludicrous statement.jerry
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
EDTA: I’m watching my country/society disintegrate, because it is in the process of forsaking a common grounding for morality.
Do you have any concrete examples? I see a society with plenty of problems. But I also see a society that is more tolerant, accommodating and accepting of different cultures, religions, indigenous peoples, women, homosexuals, transgendered, those with mental and physical disabilities, etc. than it was fifty years ago. I certainly wouldn’t want to return to the glory days that never were.JHolo
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
EDTA/67
I’m watching my country/society disintegrate, because it is in the process of forsaking a common grounding for morality. We were never perfect or in complete agreement, but now there is less agreement than ever on bedrock moral issues. This is happening at the exact same time that more people are patting themselves on the back for being so smart and coming up with their own moralities–plural.
I am seeing something similar in which open, democratic societies are fragmenting into smaller "tribal" groups that are suspicious of - or openly hostile to - other "tribal" groups. The only places it doesn't seem to be happening are those societies where any kind of dissent is forcibly suppressed by authoritarian regimes.
So yes, having a central source for morality (that is good, just, etc.) would be an improvement over what we’re being handed now. Moral nihilism bears an ugly fruit: it’s great for the strongest/richest/most aggressive, but bad for everyone else.
I can understand the appeal of a promised certainty in times of great uncertainty but I don't think differences over morality are the root cause of this instability. The other problem is that there is a tendency to assume that the imposed morality is going to be one's own preferred version, But I doubt Christians would accept an Islamic or Hindu or Buddhist morality being imposed on them and neither would the others accept the imposition of Christian mores. We need to find a way past this instinctive "tribalism" but I can't see a way that we can that would be acceptable to all people.Seversky
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Querius/66
So, you’re saying that you don’t know why you’d compare primates to other orders by clades...."
That's not what I said, but, in any event, it's not relevant, nor does it make any sense re your original question about Mitochondrial Eve. You need to re-read my comment at 61. Ciao........chuckdarwin
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
PS, Will Hawthorne, in reply to such ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism, is deservedly withering, echoing the concerns Plato raised in The Laws, Bk X, concerns that reflect lessons hard-bought with blood and tears:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [a material] 'is'.
kairosfocus
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
EDTA, Ironically, for over 2,000 years, there has been on record a core consensus across worldviews regarding first duties of responsible, conscience guided reasoning. As I have pointed out for a considerable time now, those principles are pervasive, branch on which we all sit, first principles. Those who try to deny such, invariably appeal to them. Those who try to prove or even demand proof are already using them. That is the mark of self evident first principle truths, antecedent to proof. The stuff proofs are spun out of. I can cite Cicero summing up the received wisdom of the Greco Roman pagans on first law built into our nature, here let's use de Legibus:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
We can draw out and summarise, duties:
1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.
That "etc" points to how these can be extended onward and were, framing the emergence of lawful, constitutional democracy and major social, legal, governmental and even spiritual reforms. Of course, that something is self evident does not by itself identify its roots in the core of being; strictly, it only identifies that we have here naturally straight and accurate plumb lines to judge whether our yardsticks are crooked or not. Which leads to the onward point, that there are two kinds of ignorance: simple never been exposed, and ideological ignorance by which crooked yardsticks have been used to marginalise and dismiss what is genuinely straight, upright, accurate. As Dallas Willard has summarised, the latter is what has happened to moral knowledge in our civilisation. The issue is, why. The answer is, men wished to be rid of the implied restraints of built in, intelligible first law and the associated voice of conscience. So we are in a day ruled by radical relativism, subjectivism, legal positivism, driven by evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers duly clad in lab coats. This opens the door for misanthropic, anticivilisational jacobins seeking to impose lawless oligarchy, to nihilism. Currently, the big bear here is cultural marxism. The resulting absurdities and chaos are visible all around. That's part of why I say kindly show us a nine sided hexagon. We have forgotten that there is such a thing as a nature, here, a morally guided one rooted in the source of reality. It is only in the reality root that is and ought can be bridged. But the bill of requisites for such is utterly unwelcome amongst those who hold the high cultural ground that dominates the public square. For, they are implacably hostile to a necessary being world root capable of being source and sustainer of worlds, inherently good and utterly wise. Moral nihilism as a dominant cultural force comes from evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. Never mind that it is easy to show that such evolutionary materialism cannot credibly account for mind much less morality. The crooked yardstick has been imposed. The question is, are we going to take up the fight to take back the high ground before it is too late? KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
Sev writes, >What I find ironic is when Christians say atheists have no basis for morality when their doctrine means that they are unable to work out for themselves what is moral or immoral, they have to wait for their God to tell them. I'm watching my country/society disintegrate, because it is in the process of forsaking a common grounding for morality. We were never perfect or in complete agreement, but now there is less agreement than ever on bedrock moral issues. This is happening at the exact same time that more people are patting themselves on the back for being so smart and coming up with their own moralities--plural. So yes, having a central source for morality (that is good, just, etc.) would be an improvement over what we're being handed now. Moral nihilism bears an ugly fruit: it's great for the strongest/richest/most aggressive, but bad for everyone else.EDTA
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @65, So, you're saying that you don't know why you'd compare primates to other orders by clades, but agree that members of a species or subspecies can be grouped into clades, right? -QQuerius
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Lieutenant Commander Data @ 63,
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Well, let's see . . . -QQuerius
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Querius/62 Nopechuckdarwin
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
You can't teach an old dog new tricks. They repeat old tricks (from Darwin books ) thinking they will became truth by repetition. :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @61,
Why would you want to do that? Clade members exhibit shared derived traits.
Are you suggesting that members of a species or subspecies do not? -QQuerius
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Why would you want to do that? Clade members exhibit shared derived traits. for example, monkeys have tails; hominoids (apes) do not. This supports different types of locomotion, bipedalism, etc., etc., etc. It would make no sense to put them in the same clade. Also, clades are nested, so to the extent species share traits, they share a clade at the appropriate level. Hominoids are nested in the larger clade, Anthropoids, which does contain monkeys. In very simple terms, the higher you go, the fewer common traits, the less reason for a shared clade. This is getting way off your original comment re Mitochondrial Eve, so I'm moving on......chuckdarwin
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @59, Cladistics could then also group all primates into a single clade. Why not? -QQuerius
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
SA/58 Cladistics is simply a classification scheme in which humans have already been placed. There's no reason to re-invent the wheel. Also, like I said, cladistics isn't necessary to research human lineage because, by definition, the hominoid clade would include all human ancestors. I would encourage you to go back and re-read the section in Ayala's paper entitled "The Mitochondrial Eve." It is one of the clearest discussions of the concept from a biologist I've seen.chuckdarwin
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @52,
As a general statement I would agree, but the Ayala paper I provided deals with species within the same clade, hominoids, so at that level cladistics isn’t necessary.
Considering the controversies over what constitutes a separate species, isn't cladistics relevant at all levels? -QQuerius
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @55,
People get frustrated because there’s no way to respond, so they can get a “victory” with insults and mockery.
There is a cogent way to respond, but they choose mockery and abuse instead.
That reduces a discussion down to a childish level.
Yes. Or force . . . even murder. Consider the term "character assassination," for example. -QQuerius
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus @51,
Any species of racism is instantly reduced to gross disrespect to our common Father.
And
Racism alleging to be scripturally based is false and heretical teaching, blasphemy against God who made us all in his image. If he likes racial diversity, who are we to reject what he has done?
Well stated! I'm reminded of an event recorded in Torah where Miriam, the sister of Moses, used his marriage to a black woman as an excuse to question Moses' right to authority. As a result, God turned Miriam's skin "white as snow" with leprosy. Moses begged God to have mercy on his sister, so God relented but ordered that she be put out of the camp for a week as "if her father had spit in her face." -QQuerius
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Querius
It’s over by an admission of defeat through insults and ad hominem mockery, attacking the person rather than addressing the points of the position.
People get frustrated because there's no way to respond, so they can get a "victory" with insults and mockery. One of the biggest problems for atheism is that it really has nothing to say for itself. It's the religion of nihilism - nothing matters, there's no reason for anything and everything is pointless. That reduces a discussion down to a childish level.Silver Asiatic
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
KF @49 I was just researching yesterday: the first institution to use the title "university" for itself, and in fact which coined the term was the school at Bologna which was founded to study Corpus Juris Civilis.Silver Asiatic
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Ram
Some things are worthy of mockery.
Maybe try some respectful conversation with the people you disagree with? Or at least give your point of view?Silver Asiatic
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Querius/30
Funny, but most geneticists recognize the value of clades in tracing ancestry, lineages, migrations, and extinctions.
As a general statement I would agree, but the Ayala paper I provided deals with species within the same clade, hominoids, so at that level cladistics isn't necessary.chuckdarwin
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
F/N3, with all of that in mind, I draw to your attention the same text I drew attention of a Caribbean public to, in the late 80's:
Ac 17: 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,3 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;4 as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’5 29 Being then God's offspring . . .
Any species of racism is instantly reduced to gross disrespect to our common Father. Racism alleging to be scripturally based is false and heretical teaching, blasphemy against God who made us all in his image. If he likes racial diversity, who are we to reject what he has done? Yes, cultures and communities can and do often err and do much worse than err. That is why we need to revert to first duties and learn our way towards reform. But even such error and wrongdoing cannot justify demonisation of the despised other. Justice allows for no exceptions. KFkairosfocus
April 21, 2022
April
04
Apr
21
21
2022
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
F/N2, back on the main theme, the topiary raised by News citing Ruth Institute is manifestly, instantly recognisably designed. But, that is not left to subjective, unscientific perception and views, there are intelligible, observable patterns and principles that allow us to identify and in key part quantify an analysis on signs that allows confident and indeed scientific design inference, as was again recently discussed here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/ Those who object should kindly explain to us where it has been actually observed that language expressed in complex alphanumeric strings, with coded algorithms beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, have come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity _______ I of course here point to the cell. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2022
April
04
Apr
20
20
2022
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT
F/N: A few exhibits: JUSTINIAN's INSTITUTES (being, part of Corpus Juris Civilis, the built in textbook of law): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5983/5983-h/5983-h.htm >> In the name of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. The Emperor Caesar Flavius Justinian, conqueror of the Alamanni, the Goths, the Franks, the Germans, the Antes, the Alani, the Vandals, the Africans, pious, prosperous, renowned, victorious, and triumphant, ever august, To the youth desirous of studying the law: The imperial majesty should be armed with laws as well as glorified with arms, that there may be good government in times both of war and of peace, and the ruler of Rome may not only be victorious over his enemies, but may show himself as scrupulously regardful of justice as triumphant over his conquered foes. With deepest application and forethought, and by the blessing of God, we have attained both of these objects. The barbarian nations which we have subjugated know our valour, Africa and other provinces without number being once more, after so long an interval, reduced beneath the sway of Rome by victories granted by Heaven, and themselves bearing witness to our dominion. All peoples too are ruled by laws which we have either enacted or arranged. Having removed every inconsistency from the sacred constitutions, hitherto inharmonious and confused, we extended our care to the immense volumes of the older jurisprudence; and, like sailors crossing the mid-ocean, by the favour of Heaven have now completed a work of which we once despaired. When this, with God's blessing, had been done, we called together that distinguished man Tribonian, master and exquaestor of our sacred palace, and the illustrious Theophilus and Dorotheus, professors of law, [--> jurisconsults] of whose ability, legal knowledge, and trusty observance of our orders we have received many and genuine proofs, and especially commissioned them to compose by our authority and advice a book of Institutes, whereby you may be enabled to learn your first lessons in law no longer from ancient fables, but to grasp them by the brilliant light of imperial learning, and that your ears and minds may receive nothing useless or incorrect, but only what holds good in actual fact . . . . Justice is the set and constant purpose which gives to every man his due. 1 Jurisprudence is the knowledge of things divine and human, the science of the just and the unjust. 2 Having laid down these general definitions, and our object being the exposition of the law of the Roman people, we think that the most advantageous plan will be to commence with an easy and simple path, and then to proceed to details with a most careful and scrupulous exactness of interpretation. Otherwise, if we begin by burdening the student's memory, as yet weak and untrained, with a multitude and variety of matters, one of two things will happen: either we shall cause him wholly to desert the study of law, or else we shall bring him at last, after great labour, and often, too, distrustful of his own powers (the commonest cause, among the young, of ill-success), to a point which he might have reached earlier, without such labour and confident in himself, had he been led along a smoother path. 3 The precepts of the law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, and to give every man his due . . . . 1 The law of nature is that which she has taught all animals; a law not peculiar to the human race, but shared by all living creatures, whether denizens of the air, the dry land, or the sea. Hence comes the union of male and female, which we call marriage; hence the procreation and rearing of children, for this is a law by the knowledge of which we see even the lower animals are distinguished. The civil law of Rome, and the law of all nations, differ from each other thus. The laws of every people governed by statutes and customs are partly peculiar to itself, partly common to all mankind. Those rules which a state enacts for its own members are peculiar to itself, and are called civil law: those rules prescribed by natural reason for all men are observed by all peoples alike, and are called the law of nations. Thus the laws of the Roman people are partly peculiar to itself, partly common to all nations . . . . 11 But the laws of nature, which are observed by all nations alike, are established, as it were, by divine providence, and remain ever fixed and immutable [--> rooted in our intelligible order of being as responsible, rational creatures]: but the municipal laws of each individual state are subject to frequent change, either by the tacit consent of the people, or by the subsequent enactment of another statute. >> ALFRED, BOOK OF DOOMS (foundational to British common law): https://uncommondescent.com/courts/going-to-the-roots-of-lawfulness-and-justice-by-way-of-king-alfreds-book-of-dooms/ >>The Lord was speaking these words to Moyse [= Moses], [--> Yes, literally the opening words on record of the Common Law tradition as a continuous framework] and thus quoth; I am the Lord thine God. I led thee out of the Egyptians’ lands, and of their bondage [–> slavery]. 1. Love thou not other strange gods ever me. 2. Call not thou mine name in idleness, for that thou art not guiltless with me, if thou in idleness callest mine name. 3. Mind that thou hallow the rest-day. Work you six days, and on the seventh rest you. For that in six days Christ wrought heavens and earth, seas, and all shapen things that in them are, and rested him on the seventh day: and for that the Lord hallowed it. 4. Honour thine father and thine mother that the Lord gave thee : that thou be the longer living on earth. 5. Slay thou not. 6?. Commit thou not adultery. 7. Steal thou not . 8. Say thou not leasing witness. 9. Wish not thou thy neighbour’s goods with untight. 10. Work thou not to thyself golden gods or silvern. [–> scan not guaranteed 100%, note, the Decalogue from Exodus 20] 11. These are the dooms that thou shalt set them . . . . 49. These are dooms that the Almighty God himself was speaking to Moses, and bade him to hold, and, since the Lord’s onebegotten son, our God, that is, healing Christ, on middle earth came [–> “In the year of our Lord . . .” and now you know where “middle earth” comes from], he quoth that he came not these biddings to break nor to forbid, but with all good to eke them, and mild-heartedness and lowly-mindedness to learn [ –> teach, Alfred here alludes to and enfolds in the foundations, the Sermon on the Mount of Matt 5 – 7]. Then after his throes [sufferings], ere that his apostles were gone through all the earth to learn [teach], and then yet that they were together, many heathen nations they turned to God. While they all together were, they send erranddoers to Antioch and to Syria, Christ’s law to learn [teach]. When they understood that it speeded them not, then sent they an errand-writing to them. This is then that errand-writing that the apostles sent to Antioch, and to Syria, and to Cilicia, that are now from heathen nations turned to Christ . . . [quotes Ac 15] >> MAGNA CARTA, 1215, being famous, >> + (39) No free man [–> recognition of freedom, the further question is, who shall be free] shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions [–> recognition of rights including property], or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him [–> policing power & the sword of state subordinated to justice], or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals [ –> peers, i.e. trial by jury of peers] or by the law of the land [–> rule of law, not decree of tyrant or oligarch]. + (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. [–> integrity, lawfulness and legitimacy of government rooted in the priority of right and justice]>> DUTCH DOI, 1581, against Philip II of Spain, first modern DoI and direct ancestor of the US DoI: https://declarationproject.org/?p=1171 >>As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them [Cf Rom 13:1 - 10]. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives.>> LOCKE CITING ANGLICAN CANON HOOKER FROM ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY being directly antecedent to US DoI >>[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5, citing "the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker":] . . . 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. ]>> US DOI 1776, charter of modern constitutional democracy: >>When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind [--> they were consciously universal in their appeal] requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.>> The pattern of thought in extension of first duties is plain, as is the Judaeo Christian contribution. The attempt to tax Christians with slavish, blind sub rationality framed on unthinking and unintelligible alleged divine commands of arbitrary character fails.kairosfocus
April 20, 2022
April
04
Apr
20
20
2022
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Sev, 37:
What I find ironic is when Christians say atheists have no basis for morality when their doctrine means that they are unable to work out for themselves what is moral or immoral, they have to wait for their God to tell them
Pardon, but what part of the following endorsement of intelligible core conscience guarded moral principles, from a foundational work for Christian thought and theology is particularly hard to understand?
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 . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 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 [--> or, harm] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Yes, there is a struggle but core principles are branch on which we all sit, first principles. You may be disinclined to listen to Cicero et al, or to Paul [thought leader of the Christian synthesis that transformed Greco-Roman culture into Western civilisation by bringing to bear the Judaeo-Christian heritage of Jerusalem] et al, but the historical fact is, this decisively shaped advancement of civilisation. But then Project 1619 shows cynical intent to rewrite history on crooked yardstick, distorted facts and principles. The spirit of accusation is not a sound basis for responsible, rational freedom. Let us refresh, structuring Cicero, regarding, branch on which we all sit, first principle, so self evident first duties:
1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.
That etc has to do with how civilisation was built, with particular focus on the jurisprudential and governmental thought behind major reformations and transformations. Things, that entrenched lawfulness, legitimacy, rights protection through the civil peace of justice - due balance of rights, freedoms and duties, etc. I find it sadly revealing that despite repeatedly showing that even objectors cannot but imply these duties, and despite the bristling reaction to showing that evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers lack world root level bridges from is to ought, such self evident principles are not embraced but are marginalised. Why, it's as though such are forced to cling to absurdities. Which is exactly where insistent resistance to the self evident leads to. The continual attempt to marginalise Christians as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, fails. Do you want me to go on to a mirror principle, confession by projection analysis, or further exposure of willful ignorance [you have been present when these have been discussed many times]? Let me just pause to observe that one has to be careful in targetting Christians as that for obvious reasons connected to "Jerusalem," in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, is often implicitly antisemitic. Here is the principal Biblical sources on duty of neighbour love, from Moshe and Yeshua, which Paul based his thought on:
MOSHE: Lev 19: 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. 11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely [--> abuse of oath through perjury], and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. [--> delaying right and justice] 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind [--> taking advantage of weakness or disability], but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD. 15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life1 of your neighbor [--> false witness]: I am the LORD. 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. [--> see the context of this summary, giving yardstick examples?] YESHUA: Matt 7: 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets . . . . 22: 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Say this after me, three times, to rivet in mind: Christian, gospel ethics is inextricably Hebraic and contempt to Christians and the Christian scriptures is contempt to Jews also. I trust this will not have to be repeated. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2022
April
04
Apr
20
20
2022
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @43, It's over by an admission of defeat through insults and ad hominem mockery, attacking the person rather than addressing the points of the position. And now, we're simply witnessing the equivalent in a debate of the flailing legs of a dying insect on its back.
. . . we can just hope they can reflect on it some time later and let the point sink in
Yes, I agree. They're my sympathies as well. -QQuerius
April 20, 2022
April
04
Apr
20
20
2022
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
SA: Once the insults begin Some things are worthy of mockery. His post was worthy. [Shrug.] I'm not proposing anyone run him over with a car, or anything. Lighten up. --RAMram
April 20, 2022
April
04
Apr
20
20
2022
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
Querius: ad hominem Evidently you don't know what that term means. --RAMram
April 20, 2022
April
04
Apr
20
20
2022
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Seversky
What I find ironic is when Christians say atheists have no basis for morality when their doctrine means that they are unable to work out for themselves what is moral or immoral, they have to wait for their God to tell them.
That not only does not seem ironic (it would be ironic if Christians also had no basis for morality) but it's incorrect. I'm sure you've seen the debates here on the objective moral law - which requires an effort to apply general morals to specifics and work out what is the best solution. But even if it was true that Christian doctrine said that you have to wait for God to tell you (which you've claimed incorrectly), then that would be a basis for morality, and it's hard to imagine a better standard than having the creator of the moral law, the universe and human life telling you what is the best action to take and what should be avoided. If God directly spoke to you and told you what to do, I think you would appreciate that moment very greatly.Silver Asiatic
April 20, 2022
April
04
Apr
20
20
2022
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply