Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fitna vs Expelled – Is Islamofascism similar to Darwinian fascism?

David L. Hagen
March 27, 2008
Darwinism, Expelled, Intelligent Design, Philosophy
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Are there parallels between the effects of “Big Science” Darwinism severe job discrimination against non-Darwinists as shown in Expelled, and recent terrorism by Jihadists?

The very controversial film Fitna offers a view on radical Islam and the Qur’an by by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV). It was just released today March 27th on the Internet, and already has over one million downloads each in English and Dutch. Wilders alternates verses from the Qur’an with terrorist events and statements by radical jihadists. Blogpulse of Fitna already lists 2110 messages or 0.1% of messages, compared to 1618 for Blogpulse Expelled Stein.

Compare prominent Darwinist PZ Myers Insisting:

“Don’t tell me to be dispassionate or less unreasonable about it all because because 65% of the American population think creationism should be taught alongside evolution,. . .
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don’t care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way.”

Perspective, Pharyngula, Thursday, August 04, 2005

Similarly PZ Myers advocates:

“Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians”(objecting to a creationist high school biology teacher and the education commissioner seeking instruction in “intelligent design creationism”)

What differences are there between imposing the beliefs of believers in Darwinism on others, with imposing the beliefs of radical Islam on others? Is either compatible with constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and speech?

Do we need to describe and strongly oppose such tactics as Darwinian Fascism?

Describing September 11, 2001, Stephen Schwartz defined:

“Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama’atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.”

See: What Is ‘Islamofascism’? A history of the word from the first Westerner to use it. The Daily Standard 08/17/2006. See: Islamofascism at Wikipedia.

What do we need to do to vigorously uphold our rights to religious expression and speech? See:

fn2 [ Annotations ]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, 2001

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

  • Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  • Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, nonselfgoverning or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
  • Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The film Fitna is available as follows (warning, disturbing themes and visuals):

{PS DLH added “radical” to Islam}

Comments
DLH
Why the cultural decline in the USA today?
Does darwinism cause cultural decline? If a large % of the USA believes in a god, and they do, and yet somehow there is still cultural decline I doubt that mentioning the E word will add much to that or in fact caused much of it at all. How could it of? Most believe. And after all the point of all this is that most of the USA believes that life did not create itself yet that simple self evident fact cannot be acknowledged at school, right? And that's what a good portion of this is about, as far as I can tell. I want to know what would be taught alongside evolution, once that fact is acknowledged, if you get you way.
Why the demise of the USSR & Eastern European countries?
The USA had alot to do with that.f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
-----f. blair: “When you say evolutionary materialism denies the reality of the rational mind, what actual consequences does that have? How are the two things related? Are only believers in a particular flavor of deity allowed to participate in the world of reason and logic? Would you say that just believing is enough, or do you think it has to be more specific? Again, there are a lot of atheist scientists out there who are given a good appearance of rationality, reason and logic.” I have never met a rational atheist scientist. Although they use logic at a minimal level, they cannot reason their way beyond their own paradigm long enough to consider the consequences of their own actions. That is why they contaminate science by making it an object of worship. It is they who say “if we can do it, we ought to do it”---that is not rational. It is they who hate the “big bang” theory because it implies a creator---that is not rational. It is they who cannot distinguish between a presupposition (creation science) and an inference (intelligent design)---that is not rational; it is they who persecute ID scientists and misrepresent the methodology---that is not rational. Except in their own limited world, they cannot even reason in the abstract. Have you never read the works of Richard Dawkins? It is irrational to renounce the metaphysical conditions necessary for rationality; it is irrational to renounce the mind that does the reasoning; it is irrational to renounce the reasonableness of the world that they nevertheless try to reason about; it is irrational to renounce the formal definition of truth, which is the mind’s correspondence to reality. So the only question to ask anyone who renounces the metaphysical foundations for science is this: Why have you chosen irrationality?StephenB
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
f.blair " . . .Continued usage of the presupposition that excludes non-material causation is not causing a revolution . . ." How do you know? Would you recognize it if you saw it? What was Columbine? Why the demise of the USSR & Eastern European countries? Why the cultural decline in the USA today? A "systematic design theory" is under development. See: Essential Intelligent Design Bibliography See publications on: Intelligent Design Research See books by: Dembski & Wells, The Design of Life Mike Gene, The Design Matrix Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box Guillermo Gonzalez, Privileged Planet etc.DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
DLH, Sure, but is that happening? Continued usage of the presupposition that excludes non-material causation is not causing a revolution and the conventional paradigm is producing results, as usual. If money was pouring in and nothing was coming out the other end hard questions would quickly be asked, I suspect. Is there any evidence that that is the case? I know the Biologic group is working on ID stuff but I've not heard much from them as yet. I've had a look at the ID Assumptions like you provided. It's a very large website, could you provide a link to the part that best represents a systematic design theory?f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
f.blair at 118 With the current state of affairs, just getting recognition of presuppositions, and limitations of the conventional paradigm is a major advance. The Discovery Institute advocates that at present. Intelligent Design is being developed as an alternate theory. e.g see Dembski and Wells, The Design of Life. See ID Assumptions. Beyond this, a systematic design theory needs to be developed and published that is more explicitly descriptive and predictive. One step at a time. PS Note the impact of Darwinism on the Columbine killers. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/bomb.asp"> How to build a bomb in the public school system observes:
"The autopsy report for one of the killers documents that on the day of the tragedy he was wearing black combat boots, a black glove on his right hand, and a white T-shirt with the inscription ‘Natural Selection’ on the front. . . . They were also fascinated by the German Nazi belief, fueled by ideas of Darwinian struggle, in a ‘master race.’
See also Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
DLH - earlier you said
Today we have Darwinists forcing all public education to require teaching only “evolution’ as the only “scientific” theory, regardless of the persuasion of the parents and students.
What is the alternate theory you desire to be taught then? The two points you mention above
That the theory of evolution as held by the majority implicitly assumes materialistic naturalism and excludes intelligent causation.
and secondly
Evolution requires priori self replicating life for which it has no explanation.
appear to be criticisms of standard evolutionarily theory rather then a proposed alternative "scientific theory" to evolution. I'm more interested in the alternative you want to teach then the reasons you feel it's necessary to teach it (i.e because you feel darwinism has failings as you just pointed out there with your two points).f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
f.blair at 114. "I’m asking what behavioral differences could you look for to prove your point here?" Good question. Start with do they uphold the unalienable freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Particularly No Establishment of religion, No limit on Free Expression of religion. OR Do they insist on enforcing their viewpoint and insisting that all dissenters are "intolerant"? Any who will not support and defend each person's unalienable rights is pursuing totalitarianism/fascism. e.g., PZ Myers as a classic example. Advocating the "good of the whole" at the detriment of the individual is another clue. I have just started reading Os Guinness, The Case for Civility - any why our future depends on it. HarperOne ISBN 978-0-06-135343-7 See particularly His Afterword The Williamsburg Charter - A Celebration and Reaffirmation of the First Amendment. See also Documents Professing Principles of Universal Religious Freedom European Convention on Human Rights
Article 9, as does Article 18 of the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance." (1950).
DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
jerry
It is always possible that an individual scientist will get religion (used as an expression only here) but the community would be very unsympathetic and search for a material explanation.
And there you have the crux of the matter Mr Jerry. They would search for a material explanation. This anomalous result would preclude satisfactory explanation if the solution could not be investigated due to crippled tools. Currently I don't believe ID is in that situation and by the way you phrased that I don't believe you do either. Is there a Indiana Jones style box in a warehouse somewhere with something easier hidden then investigated? So, with regard to teaching non-materialist theory's in the classroom, if there is no item pending satisfactory material explanation then what is it that is being prosed to teach in the schools? Of course, there are the items identified as supporting the ID ideology such as irreducibly complexity, amongst other things but in the situation I describe above the community as a whole is already satisfied with the status quo explanations for these items and so the progress, if any, will have to come from labs unafraid to explore these frontiers themselves.f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
f.blair at 111 For public education, start with 1) PRESUPPOSITIONS That the theory of evolution as held by the majority implicitly assumes materialistic naturalism and excludes intelligent causation. (Some may claim there is theistic evolution, but when push comes to shove, the "theistic" part is discarded for "random mutation" and is only appealed to for warm fuzzy emotions. 2) Origin of Life The primary rule of empirical biology Life comes from life See Louis Pasteur etc. Evolution requires priori self replicating life for which it has no explanation. etc. Enforcing in public schools a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution excluding all but materialistic naturalism is a clear establishment of religion.DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
DLH
Darwin’s “Origin of Species” has spawned many regimes reknowned for brutality and murder.
Yes, but you are talking about the level of governments and war. I'm asking about how individual scientists and ordinary people (who after all make up the actual people who implement totalitarian states) are affected. How can what you say be true at the macro level of governments etc, but not have recognizable signs down at the micro level. I suppose what I'm asking is what signs do I have to look for in a scientists if I suspect they have succumbed to Totalitarian/Fascist tendencies after reading Darwins Origin of Species? It can't affect goverments without affecting people first. I'm asking what behavioral differences could you look for to prove your point here? It seems to me there owuld be some.f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
f,blair, You have to understand the concept of the "Just told story." It is common in evolutionary biology and in fact is the main form of evidence for the Darwinian theory. It is the only science where one's imagination, the so called plausible story, is evidence. Now in your example that you list, there is nothing preventing the scientist from investigating the phenomena but the explanation would most likely be couched in a just told story. It is always possible that an individual scientist will get religion (used as an expression only here) but the community would be very unsympathetic and search for a material explanation. You are talking about ideology here and it must be protected.jerry
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
f.blair at 108 "I can’t see that becoming convinced that Darwinism is correct leads to Totalitarian/Fascist tendencies in any measure." Then I refer you to history. In this last century, 33 democracies succumbed to totalitarianism. NOT because the majority of peace loving persons, but because of a particular person supported by a small number of militant supporters. Many of these had Darwinism as their foundation. See From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart, Communism's Black Book, Stéphane Courtois et al. 1999, ISBN-10: 0674076087 As a consequence, over 100 million people were killed by those totalitarian States - far more than the 39 million in all wars of the 20th century. Darwin's "Origin of Species" has spawned many regimes reknowned for brutality and murder. Worldviews have consequences. Darwinism's Might makes Right is among the worst. Thus it is critically important that people recognize the predominant consequences of Darwinism -- (regardless the objections of Richard Dawkins.)DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
DLH
Today we have Darwinists forcing all public education to require teaching only “evolution’ as the only “scientific” theory
I remember recently hearing from people considered to be the founders of ID that they don't believe that ID is ready for the school room. Obviously you disagree with that. If you had a free hand, what would the syllabus you are proposing cover? Just bullet points would be great. And would what you teach solely depend on the persuasion of the parents and students? That could get tricky if standardized testing is required, if the content of the test you take depends on where you live, what if you move just before test day to a community with very different leanings?f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
jerry -
They believe that all things can be explained by material means
So, if I understand you correctly: (materialists) believe that everything can be explained by material means. (ID) believes that not everything can be explained by material means. So, if you had two groups of scientists, as above, working away and something was found that led towards non-material places why would, having previously accepted the irrational part of the Darwinian paradigm, automatically disbar them from following the evidence where it lead to? Sure, they might not want to tell their boss because they might be branded mad etc (just like in the films) but they'd pursue it anyway, if at all possible? A Nobel awaits after all! Aren't you presuming that all materialist scientists would automatically reject evidence that goes against their atheism, after all, accepting the evidence then trying to explain it is at the core of the whole scientific endeavor. Would every single person react the same way? I doubt it. Some would be converted, whatever the evidence pointed to. Look at some of the things that people believe nowdays with no actual evidence!f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Fascist Darwinian education.
"In Nazi Germany there was a concerted effort by the Nazis to end all education except for state education, which was duly Nazified. . . .When exhortations and threats ceased to be enough, Himmler simply banned all Confessing Church seminaries and instruction in 1937. Two years later Himmler closed all private religious schools."
Some Wicked Friends of Public Schools By Bruce Walker, American Thinker March 28, 2008. How is current American public education any different from Nazi Germany's fascist program? Today we have Darwinists forcing all public education to require teaching only "evolution' as the only "scientific" theory, regardless of the persuasion of the parents and students. Yet Darwinists equally enforce materialistic evolution, a prioriexcluding all other explanations or theories.DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
How are we to work together when a small minority seek to impose this doctrine on all others by force?
As ever, it's only a small proportion of people that show the most radical predilections. As long as the majority of the population disagree then the radical element can never really win. I hope. DLH, "Totalitarian/Fascist Darwinists" sounds really quite severe. What proportion of Darwinists are Totalitarian/Fascist? I can only but think the best of people and I can't see that becoming convinced that Darwinism is correct leads to Totalitarian/Fascist tendencies in any measure. These people have normal home lives and family's I'm sure? What think you?f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
f.blair, As far as I know current scientists only believe in one irrational thing and that has no effect on science. They believe that all things can be explained by material means and as part of that accept the full Darwinian paradigm. They accept the irrational part of the Darwinian paradigm but this part has no applicability to anything in the scientific world. So they can get away with accepting it and not have it affect their work. They accept the irrational part of the Darwinian paradigm because their personal philosophy of life would fall apart if they didn't. Since they cannot have that, they blindly accept the whole paradigm and prevent any questioning of it.jerry
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
mohammed.husain 91-93 Those are noble saying worthy of consideration. How can those in both the West and the East work to uphold the principles of freedom of worship and freedom of speech? Especially in the face of Totalitarian/Fascist Darwinists and radical Islamofascists who seek to impose their world view on others of different persuasion? You cite Surahs 3, 5 and 16. Following on StephenB 94 For those who hold to the doctrine of the "Abrogator and the Abrogated Doctrine (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh)", has not Surah 3 and 5 had both their authority for applications and their wording been abrogated? Has not Surah 16 had its wording abrogated/nullified, but maintained its authority for applications? Have not these both been abrogated by: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5 The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation Prepared by Abdullah Al Araby How are we to work together when a small minority seek to impose this doctrine on all others by force?DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
StephenB -
To maintain evolutionary materialism is to abandon the world of reason and logic.
Yet as is repeated many times, surveys of scientists show that the majorty are not believers. According to you then they have abandoned the world of reason and logic, yet the inventions still continue to work, electrons continue to flow in predicable (as predicted by evolutionary materialist scientists) ways and the ceiling has not fallen. When you say evolutionary materialism denies the reality of the rational mind, what actual consequences does that have? How are the two things related? Are only believers in a particular flavor of deity allowed to participate in the world of reason and logic? Would you say that just believing is enough, or do you think it has to be more specific? Again, there are a lot of atheist scientists out there who are given a good appearance of rationality, reason and logic.f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
-----" f. blair: "No, of course, but I think you can appreciate the fact that the in the past things that people thought were self evident truth turned out to be wrong after more information was uncovered. And so while the value of a self evident truth can be meaningful I don’t think you should put all your eggs in that particular basket. And people might being to question any so called self-evident truth if the people claiming it is self evident have a particular axe to grind. It’s not a good starting point if you as me." Rationality can exist only if there is [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds to apprehend the universe and [C] a correspondence between the two. Take away any of these three components and the entire rational enterprise collapses. Both realms, the rational universe and the rational mind, must be real, a condition that some refer to as ontological dualism. There must be something to reason about and something to reason with. For evolutionary materialism, only one realm exists (monism). It grants the reality of the universe (even at that is dismisses its rationality), but it denies the reality of the rational mind that would apprehend the universe. Further, it must obviously deny correspondence, since the necessary condition for correspondence (two realms) has been removed. To maintain evolutionary materialism is to abandon the world of reason and logic.StephenB
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
hi KF,
That is, you cannot, consistent with logical coherence and factual adequacy, successfully deny self evident truth.
No, of course, but I think you can appreciate the fact that the in the past things that people thought were self evident truth turned out to be wrong after more information was uncovered. And so while the value of a self evident truth can be meaningful I don't think you should put all your eggs in that particular basket. And people might being to question any so called self-evident truth if the people claiming it is self evident have a particular axe to grind. It's not a good starting point if you as me.
one shows the absurdity, step by step, relative to that common sense, experientially anchored reality that we all know but are often tempted to deny under the pressure of certain philosophical systems.
Experientially anchored? What particular experientially anchored reality is that? I know of the Biologic work, or do you refer to something else?
In short, there is a need to be able to ground the credibolity of the mind on chance + necessity working through RV + NS.
To me the credibility of what I guess you could call Darwinism is the fact that there are tons of journals and papers talking about and using it. It seems that you are holding Darwinism to a higher standard of evidence then your favored alternative. That's not to say that there are no peer-reviewed ID friendly papers (10+) but when you talk about RV+NS not being credible, well it's you to my mind that loses credibility.
And, 1933 - 1945, in Germany? Or for that matter 1958 - 9 [up to 2008] and 1979 - 83 here in the Caribbean? In short, there are any number of ways in which society can be FORCED to undergo radical change, once it has been taken over by ruthless men.
I think it speaks to your naïveté if you think that society can be FORCED to change in a direction it's opposed to. The events in Germany did not happen in a vacuum, the population at any time could have stopped it, acting as a whole. To put the blame 100% on a few "ruthless men" is oversimplifying far too much to retain a coherent story.
The issue we face here in the Caribbean is that there is a rising tide of evolutionary materialism, often in the guise of “science says . . .” which feeds into an agenda of anti-Christian bigotry and bias; rather as it has elsewhere. So I am equipping people here to understand and counter it.
Are you sure rather then "science says" you don't really mean "a small sub-set of science says"? After all, the majority of science is "self-evidently" right or we'd not be having this conversation mediated by the component parts, physical and electromagnetic that make up computers, the internet etc. So, I don't think as a whole science is saying anything about if evolution has or has not made a deity superfluous, and to say that it is is misrepresenting the case significantly. So what "science says" is not significantly in error in regard to the physical world, don't you agree?f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
kf, what is the source of the quote in 2) above, the one that starts "[evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of “science”]..."? ThanksJack Krebs
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
f.blair, you said "unlike sometimes in the USA where they are left to fend for themselves, many homeless have mental health problems after all" I don't think you understand how liberal thought works in the US. About 50 miles from where I live is a large complex of abandoned buildings, 10-20 of 2-3 story buildings which was once a mental hospital. Some time in the recent past, 30-40 years ago it was declared barbaric to keep people in mental institutions against their will. Hence these people, many addicted seriously to drugs and alcohol and of low functionality were set loose on the streets of America in name of individual freedom. So we get homeless. I am sure it not quite as simple as I have just portrayed, but the homeless in America are there by design not neglect. The policies were considered forward thinking and were opposed to the "medieval" policies then in effect which involuntarily incarcerated those who could not function on their own. There are programs aimed at these people, maybe someone here can comment, but essentially they are let loose on purpose not neglect.jerry
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
And KF, could Godel be applied to natural science as well as math? If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent. It seems something outside nature is required to give nature meaning.tribune7
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Bob O'H at 90 No. I only withdraw the “Darwinian Lysenkoism”. I explicitly reiterate: "Consider some Characteristics of Darwinian Fascism/Totalitarianism … * Imprisoning or killing objectors." Because that is the ultimate consequence of carrying the foundational "moral" principles of Darwinism to their ultimate end. They are well attested to by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
KF-- good post as always. For contemporaneous illustration: Is Bill Clinton a Christian? Now obviously, only God knows for sure but most Christians would figure that he sure doesn't act like one despite the way he totes his Bible around, and of course, Clinton never got the religious vote in his presidential campaigns. OTOH, the anti-religious crowd gave him a LOT of support despite his toting the Bible around and claiming to be a Christian and making appearances in churches. I betcha PZ voted for him.tribune7
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
FB: A few notes on follow up to your points: 1] 96: I’ve always been leery of so called “self-evident” truth. I’d rather not take the tack that denying them ends in absurdity . . . First, I am speaking logically, in the sense of reductio ad absurdum. That is, you cannot, consistent with logical coherence and factual adequacy, successfully deny self evident truth. [Cf here Mortimer Adler's essay on little errors in the beginning to see some of what I am pointing to in so speaking.] Here is Adler in a key excerpt:
The little error in the beginning, made by Locke and Leibniz, perpetuated by Kant, and leading to the repudiation of any non-verbal or non-tautological truth having incorrigible certitude, consists in starting with a dichotomy instead of a trichotomy -- a twofold instead of a threefold distinction of types of truth. In addition to merely verbal statements which, as tautologies, are uninstructive and need no support beyond the rules of language, and in addition to instructive statements which need support and certification, either from experience or by reasoning, there is a third class of statements which are non-tautological or instructive, on the one hand, and are also indemonstrable or self-evidently true, on the other. These are the statements that Euclid called "common notions," that Aristotle called "axioms" or "first principles," and that mediaeval thinkers called "propositions per se nota." One example will suffice to make this clear -- the axiom or selfevident truth that a finite whole is greater than any of its parts. This proposition states our understanding of the relation between a finite whole and its parts. It is not a statement about the word "whole" or the word "part" but rather about our understanding of wholes and parts and their relation. All of the operative terms in the proposition are indefinable. We cannot express our understanding of a whole without reference to our understanding of its parts and our understanding that it is greater than any of its parts. We cannot express our understanding of parts without reference to our understanding of wholes and our understanding that a part is less than the whole of which it is a part . . . . Such propositions are neither analytic nor synthetic in the modern sense of that dichotomy; for the predicate is neither contained in the definition of the subject, nor does it lie entirely outside the meaning of the subject. Axioms or self-evident truths are, furthermore, truths about objects understood, objects that can have instantiation in reality, and so they are not merely verbal. They are not a priori because they are based on experience, as all our knowledge and understanding is; yet they are not empirical or a posteriori in the sense that they can be falsified by experience or require empirical investigation for their confirmation. The little error in the beginning, which consists in a non-exhaustive dichotomy mistakenly regarded as exhaustive, is corrected when we substitute for it a trichotomy that distinguishes (i) merely verbal tautologies, (ii) statements of fact that require empirical support and can be empirically falsified, (iii) axiomatic statements, expressing indemonstrable truths of understanding which, while based upon experience, do not require empirical support and cannot be empirically falsified.[6]
As Adler just exemplified, one does not simply dismiss those who reject self-evident truth, but rather one shows the absurdity, step by step, relative to that common sense, experientially anchored reality that we all know but are often tempted to deny under the pressure of certain philosophical systems. BTW, Kant's dichotomising between the world of reality in itself and the world in our minds, his Copernican Revolution in phil, also has in it such a denial that ends in absurdity. Here, I cite Kreeft and Tacelli:
[Kant’s] “Copernican Revolution in philosophy” was the claim that our knowledge does not conform to a real object but vice versa . . . All the form, determination, specificity or knowable content comes from the mind and is projected out onto the world rather than coming from the world and being impressed upon the mind . . . . Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” is self-contradictory, just as simple [radical or selective] skepticism is. After all, if Kant was right, how could he possibly have known he was right in terms of his system? He couldn’t. He could never know that there are “things- in- themselves,” onto which the knowing self projects all knowable content. That would be knowing the unknowable, thinking both sides of thought’s limit. There is a half truth in Kantianism. Some knowledge is conditioned by our forms of consciousness(e.g. Colors by the eye, measurements by artificial scales and ideological positions by personal preferences). But even here there must be some objective content first that is received and known, before it can be classified or interpreted by the knowing subject.[Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Crowborough, England: Monarch, 1995) pp. 372 – 373.]
2] Could you explain how the evolutionary materialist view ends up undercutting the very validity of mind? To me that simply does not make any sense. Whatever evolutionary study finds it won’t affect my concept of the validity of my own personal mind. I note that you begin your excerpts AFTER the actual reductio. So, here is the reductio that Evo Mat has to address and resolve [so far, not very successfully; I am simply giving a brief and simple version of a much more comprehensive case, onlookers]:
[evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . .
In short, there is a need to be able to ground the credibolity of the mind on chance + necessity working through RV + NS. The ontological gap embraced, leads to absurdity: chance + deterministic forces cannot credibly account for a trustworthy mind. 3] it seems to me that yes, family structures and rules of sexual morality are in fact accidents of history. I quote: it seems to me . . . Unfortunately, the consequences of this one are playing out around us, and will increasingly contribute to the internal collapse of Western Civilisation. 4] England is becoming a very secular society. Hardly anybody goes to church anymore. Yet life has value, the sick defenseless and undesirable are cared for . . . Much of the compassion that is admirable about the UK system traces -- to its Christian heritage (and in very significant measure to the results of the Evangelical awakenings and associated reform movements of C18 - 19; ever read Gen Booth's "In Darkest London"?], I am afraid. But, already, secularisation is degrading the value of life, starting with the first 24 weeks in the womb . . . [BTW, I am not an American.] 4] I don’t see how a given individual can “force” society to conform to what they see as right, except via the normal methods used from the beginning of time to “change society”. And that’s via the ballot box or convincing people via evidence (ideally) that your way is better, or any number of other ways to seek change (suffragettes for example) I don’t see a magic button that people can press to force society to change without everybody else buying into the change or at the very least stating their opposition to the mooted change. Let's see, does July 14, 1789, Paris, ring a bell? How about October [Actually November] 1917, Russia? And, 1933 - 1945, in Germany? Or for that matter 1958 - 9 [up to 2008] and 1979 - 83 here in the Caribbean? In short, there are any number of ways in which society can be FORCED to undergo radical change, once it has been taken over by ruthless men. 5] your reference to the death camp is somewhat odd, after all the Nazi’s were influenced by Darwin to an extent (as noted by expelled!) but they were also influenced by Hitler who in his own words said he was influenced by his belief in God and that he was doing right by his God. So, it seems to me that Darwinism on it’s own is not enough to cause the situation you describe and as such is it accurate to place 100% of the blame there? Let's take a clue or two from Vox Day in his recent book and column on this exact point:
Just as atheists anticipate the need to answer for Stalin and Mao, Christians are expected to answer for the Inquisition and the Crusades. And both sides recognize the need to deal with the Hitler question. Like Einstein, the Führer made enough ambiguous statements to leave the matter up for discussion; unlike Einstein, no one is eager to claim Hitler and his National Socialists as members of their intellectual camp . . . . after quoting Hitler's public statements that state outright that he is a Christian, and a very devout one at that, Dawkins quotes private statements that reveal a deep hatred for Christianity surpassing that possessed by even the most militant New Atheist. It is possible that Hitler had by 1941 experienced some kind of de-conversion or disillusionment with Christianity. Or is the resolution of the contradictions simply that he was an opportunistic liar whose words cannot be trusted, in either direction? – Dawkins, "The God Delusion," 276. It is worth noting that most of the statements that indicate Hitler's Christian faith were made in public, prior to 1934, when he was still a politician running for elected office. Given his subsequent actions once he had secured political power, there is no reason to believe that Hitler meant them . . .
On the best evidence it is most likely Hitler was an occultic neo-pagan, with a racialist worldview strongly shaped by Darwinian thought as it developed in Germany in the years since 1859. [Note as well, that Germany was the locus of a by then over 100 year long major apostasy from the Christian faith as it has been understood since C1.] Nor was what happened under Hitler just Hitler. Much of it was shaped by a general, deeply darwinised and elitist intellectual climate that arrived at the concept of life unworthy of living. So, abortion, infranticide and euthanasia were powerful movements, and culminarted in genocide. The Judaeo-Christian ethic, of course stresses teh SANCTITY of life. So, while it was you British [pardon if my inference is off] who invented the Concentration Camp [and used it on the Boers], it was Hitler's Germany who perfected that iniquitous institution. 6] I don’t see it as a fight between anti-Christian bias and evolution, more like a fight between rationality and non-rationality. Note, first, I carefully, consistently speak to Evolutionary Materialism [originally a descriptive term that was clearer than "naturalism" or "Physicalism" or the like], not "Evolution" as such. The issue we face here in the Caribbean is that there is a rising tide of evolutionary materialism, often in the guise of "science says . . ." which feeds into an agenda of anti-Christian bigotry and bias; rather as it has elsewhere. So I am equipping people here to understand and counter it. In that intellectual exchange, the intellectual and morasl incoherence of evolutionary marterialism, as discussed, is a significant point of standing up for reason in the teeth of those who abuse it to advancer that which is ultimately utterly unreasonable. Okay, trust that helps. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Hi KF, I've always been leery of so called "self-evident" truth. I'd rather not take the tack that denying them ends in absurdity, I'd rather take the more rational posture that if you can provide evidence to back up your assertions then they are more likely to convince them simply saying "they are self evident and if you don't see that you are absurd". Don't you think a more productive conversation would result? Could you explain how the evolutionary materialist view ends up undercutting the very validity of mind? To me that simply does not make any sense. Whatever evolutionary study finds it won't affect my concept of the validity of my own personal mind. I followed your always linked. You said this there "Further, since family structures and rules of sexual morality are "simply accidents of history," one is free to force society to redefine family values and principles of sexual morality to suit one's preferences. Finally, life itself is meaningless and valueless, so the weak, sick, defenceless and undesirable — for whatever reason — can simply be slaughtered, whether in the womb, in the hospital, or in the death camp." Firstly, it seems to me that yes, family structures and rules of sexual morality are in fact accidents of history. If you look back you'll find that the modern concept of marriage and monogamy is a relatively recent arrangement. In fact right now in America groups of people claim the right to marry multiple times. Not only that but I don't see how a given individual can "force" society to conform to what they see as right, except via the normal methods used from the beginning of time to "change society". And that's via the ballot box or convincing people via evidence (ideally) that your way is better, or any number of other ways to seek change (suffragettes for example) I don't see a magic button that people can press to force society to change without everybody else buying into the change or at the very least stating their opposition to the mooted change. And anyway, if two adult people between them have a particular set of sexual principles who are you to say that is a bad thing? Why would anybody not want to find an arrangement more suitable to ones personal preferences? You would not condemn a particular behavior would you, simply because you yourself did not partake? Your second point also seems somewhat unsupported by fact. For example, England is becoming a very secular society. Hardly anybody goes to church anymore. Yet life has value, the sick defenseless and undesirable are cared for (unlike sometimes in the USA where they are left to fend for themselves, many homeless have mental health problems after all). And your reference to the death camp is somewhat odd, after all the Nazi's were influenced by Darwin to an extent (as noted by expelled!) but they were also influenced by Hitler who in his own words said he was influenced by his belief in God and that he was doing right by his God. So, it seems to me that Darwinism on it's own is not enough to cause the situation you describe and as such is it accurate to place 100% of the blame there? You end that article you linked to as follows "Once that is done, we can then set about separating the wheat of sound insight from the chaff of anti-Christian bias, then work towards a sounder, more sustainable future for our region." I could not agree more, however I don't see it as a fight between anti-Christian bias and evolution, more like a fight between rationality and non-rationality.f.blair
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
Footnotes: 1] Islamofascism: The term Islamofascism seems to have originated with moderate Algerians, in response to the threats from the radical islamists there in the 1990's. Citing a case in point, as just linked:
MEQ: Would you use the term Islamo-fascism to describe this threat? [Mohamed] Sifaoui [a France-based Algerian Journalist who exposed an Al Qaeda cell in France]: I certainly am one of the first Muslims to consider Islamism to be fascism. This is not a subjective decision but rather a serious, academic argument. Fascism and Islamism are comparable in many aspects: Fascism, without evoking all its particularities, bears similarities to trends also present in Islamism. I am, of course, making a reference to their will to exterminate the Jews. On this point, the Islamists may go even further in their doctrine than the Nazis did, considering that the end of the world could only occur when there are no Jews left on earth. In the three monotheist religions, apocalypse, end of the world, and doomsday exist and are liturgical events invested with a high degree of spirituality. Hence, the Islamists interpret the end of the world in a very special way. Whereas it is written nowhere in the Qur'an [NB: apparently he is here adverting to a Hadith, one of a large collection of more or less respected traditions tracing to Mohammed which also have authority in Islam], exegetes describe the end of the world as the day when even the trees and rocks will be able to talk and tell the Muslims: "Come here, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him." And this would go on, until there would not be any Jew left on earth. This ideology is pure fascism . . .
Such remarks are sobsering and havce to be addressed very carefully indeed. 2] Science is . . . As to the attempted redefinition of science to try to exclude inference to intelligence when it is not convenient to evolutionary materialism, that question-begging is its own refutation. It is neither historically nor philosophically well-waranted. As a simple isslustration ofr why, consider that natural regualrities, trace to mechanical newcessity [e.g. heat + oxidiser + fuel --> fire]. But when contingency dominates the situation, chance or agency is the logical explanation [e.g. which face of a tossed die is uppermost?]. But, equally, one may place a die by intent with the side in question uppermost. And, when there is a large enough information bearing capacity that expresses itself meaningfully and functionally, then teh logical inference is agency: e.g. we do not ge3nrally attribute coments in this thread to lucky noise but to agents. To impose a rule that one may not infer to agent action when it may not be convenient to one's worldview and agendas is thus to beg the question and censor science. 3] Basing rights To assert in effect that rights are brute givens is to imply that one has no foundation for them. The American Founders, reflecting the historically key contribution of Judaeo-Christian thought to the modern world, wrote in the context of the self evident truths of our nature as Creatures of God. In effect, deny these and one ends in absurdity, as to think on the experienced, known, intuitively understood substance of the claim is to see its point: i.e. it is self-evident. And, indeed, the evolutionary materialist view [ the broader context of major streams of Darwinian thought over the past 150 years] ends up undercutting the very validity of mind itself much less of the moral claim of right vs might. A few notes . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
The Qur’an’s tolerant verses have been “cancelled.” According to the Islamic doctrine of abrogation (naskh), Allah can change or cancel what he tells Muslims. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad's career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? Clearly, it is the latter passages relegating non-Muslims to an inferior status that is preferred by Islamic authorities. For them, Sharia Law takes precedence over the Declaration of Human Rights, which, in their judgment, is inconsistent with teachings of their Holy Book. That is why ---Islamic law mandates second-class status for Jew, Christians, and other non Muslims in Islamic societies ---The Qu’ran and Islamic law treat women as nothing more than possessions of men and instruct husbands to beat their disobedient wives. ---There is no room for any commandment of general beneficence, in spite of any claims made by Islamic apologists.StephenB
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply