Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

John West explains why Discovery Institute will start speaking up about science totalitarianism around COVID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It’s a powerful piece so read it all. Here are some snippets:

COVID-19 has been used as the rationale for an extraordinary expansion of government power in the name of science: lengthy “lockdowns” of businesses and churches, vaccination mandates, government-imposed discrimination against people based on their medical choices, government-encouraged censorship of dissenting scientific views, and more. Perhaps you support some of these policies as necessary. Perhaps you don’t. But even if you support each and every one of the policies adopted, you ought to be concerned by how they have been imposed. Almost none of the policies were enacted by legislative bodies after an open public debate. Almost all of the policies were enacted unilaterally by executive branch officials asserting emergency powers or by unelected public health officials immune from public accountability.

COVID has shown government officials how to do an end-run around the normal system of checks and balances. They simply need to invoke “science” and declare an emergency — and then extend their emergency orders time and again. Anyone who dares challenge the emergency orders will be stigmatized as “anti-science,” or they will be told they aren’t scientists so they have no right to be heard. Regardless of your view of specific anti-COVID policies, policymaking during the pandemic has set a terrible precedent for the future…

Lost in current debates is the fact that much so-called “misinformation” targeted for suppression actually represents legitimate differences of opinion held by scientists and policy experts. Other pieces of so-called “misinformation” are in reality true facts that those in charge would rather not be forced to address.

For example, it is fact, not fiction, that the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has had more adverse reaction reports filed for the COVID-19 vaccines than for any other vaccine since VAERS started collecting data in 1990. Indeed, as of mid-January, 55 percent of all adverse reactions, 59 percent of all hospitalizations, and 71 percent of all deaths reported to VAERS are from the COVID-19 vaccines. What these data mean is subject to legitimate differences of opinion. But the fact that the data exist is unquestionable. Yet if you spend much time discussing VAERS in social media or on YouTube, you are likely to be banned. John West, “The Rise of Totalitarian Science, 2022 Edition” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

And if you go along with all that, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

In Canada, the natives* are very restless indeed. Lockdown protests have been going on for days. Few reports of violence, just large numbers of people fed up with crackpot medical totalitarianism:

  • That’s from the national anthem: “O Canada, our home and native land”

You may also wish to read: Royal Society: Don’t censor misinformation; it makes things worse While others demand crackdowns on “fake news,” the Society reminds us that the history of science is one of error correction. It’s a fact that much COVID news later thought to need correction was in fact purveyed by official sources, not blogs or Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Comments
@88 Stephen B's explanation on that is the correct one. Other explanations do not make sense, and WJM is right in saying those are evil. WJM's response to SB is admirable also.Silver Asiatic
February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
"what would society look like?" I see a nation of people who are getting along less and less well as time goes forward. Which is just what I would expect if a former culture-wide standard was eroding away and being replaced by moral relativism or meager attempts at asserting various moral standards with no real foundation under them. I would expect less social capital to exist, and less social cohesion, which are also what I see.EDTA
February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
SB: We are, of course, discussing the Christian God. You're discussing SB's version of the Christian God. --Ramram
February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
SB, I don't see any need to try and nit-pick your argument. Like I said, well done : )William J Murray
February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
WJM:
Sure you did; [attribute motives to the individual} you said he ” .. chooses to remain in an unrepentant state forever. You don’t know that he’s choosing
I was referring to those who do so choose. It’s a reference to a category of sinners, not a personal attribution to an individual sinner. SB: By definition, anyone who rejects God is rejecting an eternal being. I don’t presume to know who those people are.
This presumes that the person in question knows they are rejecting God. You don’t know that they know that. That’s mind reading.
We are, of course, discussing the Christian God. If your point is that, by rejecting Him, they may not know that they are rejecting the *real* God, then, yes, you have a reasonable concern. They would be blameless unless they had willfully chosen not to know the truth or stubbornly neglected to follow up on any suspicion that they might be wrong. So we seem to be in agreement.
If your argument is that God knows the mind of these people, and God knows that they know he’s really God, and God knows that they know hell is real, and God knows that they are deliberately choosing eternal torment and will always choose it no matter how long they are there, and only the people that fit that criteria go to hell, then we’re good. I can go along with that. I have no problem with that at all.
Perhaps we can use your model to fine tune my argument. I tweaked a few changes in parentheses: God knows their mind – check God knows that they know He’s really God – check God knows that they know Hell is real – (God knows that they believe Hell is probably real) God knows that they are deliberately choosing eternal torment – (God knows that they are deliberately risking eternal torment) ,,,and will always choose it no matter how long they are there, (and some, not all, will prefer to remain in Hell forever rather than be with God forever, while others would prefer to be annihilated) …and only the people that fit that criteria go to hell, - check.
You see, you’ve made a good case (if that’s your case) and you’ve shown that in the above circumstance, eternal torment would not be evil. Well done!
That’s a very gracious thing to say, Thank you. I gather that your final assessment may change if you find my tweaks unacceptable.StephenB
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
ET: Nope. I would expect anarchy and people doing whatever they want.
That is one possibility.
But, even that is question-begging as nature cannot produce life.
What does that have to do with the subject being discussed?Scamp
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
ET-spot on... What do the secular-dominated thought societies do? What is their government system and how are people treated? Answer: Might equals right.... Now, may argue that Europe runs opposite of that...but they are still operating under a biblical framework of reality. Good observation Andrew...they cannot escape this appeal to a transcendent standard. It is impossible to live without an appeal to objective truth and morality and over-arching purpose.zweston
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
"A group of people doing their best to live together?" Sounds like someone is trying to assert an ideal/ultimate standard. Ooohh the wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'. Andrewasauber
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Scamp:
If there isn’t an ultimate standard, what would society look like? Would it not look like what we see around us? A group of people doing their best to live together? A group of people developing rules to govern themselves? A group of people making mistakes? A group of people celebrating what works?
Nope. I would expect anarchy and people doing whatever they want. But, even that is question-begging as nature cannot produce life.ET
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Scamp, you didn't deal with my statement.zweston
February 7, 2022
February
02
Feb
7
07
2022
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Sc, first the material question is objectivity, so warrant and knowability of branch on which we sit first principles undergirding the civil peace of justice. This, being, due balance of authentic rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Where, for example, as no one may justly impose doing or enabling an evil on another natural person's sound conscience [corporations etc are artificial], a claimed right is only valid when one is manifestly in the right. BTW, kindly note that many things "work" because they are evils backed by power and export the cost/damage of the evils to the marginalised or even dehumanised powerless. Slavery, for just one case, worked for many thousands of years due to the hardness of men's hearts and took major civilisational breakthroughs leading to gospel and natural law ethics influenced democratisation to break its dominance under colour of law. Because of want of critical mass support, prohibition failed and inadvertently gave a boost to organised crime, much as is playing out with marijuana and onward drugs. (I wonder if we understand the toll that is just beginning to play out.) Similarly for the worst holocaust in history, mass slaughter of our living posterity in the womb, 800+ millions and mounting at another million per week globally. And more. Pragmatism and positivism as well as relativism, subjectivism and emotivism fail. Instead, much comes from that due balance principle. For example c 50 BC, Cicero, a Roman statesman, jurist and philosopher of the Stoic school, summarised several first duties of law that can be seen to have branch on which we sit inescapability, even objectors [such as you here are] rhetorically appeal to them, e.g. to truth, right reason, warrant etc. I list in a logical order:
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.
These are echoed in many traditions and contexts, precisely due to their branch on which we sit character. For instance, sitting in church yesterday, I was noting the preface to the training manual for princes, Proverbs, in Ch 1:1 - 7. My point is, we have knowable first duties that historically shaped what we now enjoy and imagine cannot be destroyed, it cannot happen to us, we say. Ask the Germans c 1930 about that, c 1947 after the trials at Nuremberg. We have become complacent as a civilisation, even as lawless ideologies undermine the BATNA of lawfulness that protects us from sliding back into the natural state of government in a world full of powerful [or at least power hungry], ruthless, anti-civilisational, misanthropic lawless men, lawless oligarchy. It is time to wake up to our peril. KFkairosfocus
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Zweston: If there isn’t a transcendent law giver and standard bearer, there is no ultimate standard to judge anything off of. Good or bad. They don’t exist.
If there isn’t an ultimate standard, what would society look like? Would it not look like what we see around us? A group of people doing their best to live together? A group of people developing rules to govern themselves? A group of people making mistakes? A group of people celebrating what works?Scamp
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
SB said:
Incorrect. I am simply referring to the sinner whose behavior falls in that category. I did not attribute those motives or intentions to any individual.
Sure you did; you said he " .. chooses to remain in an unrepentant state forever. You don't know that he's choosing it. It may be the result of his actions, but that's not the same thing as choosing that result. Many actions have unintended results.
Incorrect. By definition, anyone who rejects God is rejecting an eternal being. I don’t presume to know who those people are.
This presumes that the person in question
knows they are rejecting God. You don't know that they know that. That's mind reading.
Not even close. As the statement indicates, the amount of time God gives a sinner to unseparate or repent is irrelevant to the discussion. No attribution to any individual has been made.
I'll bold where you did just that:
Third, the amount of time that God gives the sinner to unseparate is irrelevant if the sinner’s decision to separate is final.
As I said, this is predicated on mind reading. It refers back to your attempt to mind read "the sinner" or "the unrepentant" as making fully informed, deliberate decisions under the necessary knowledge that this particular God is real and hell really exists. If your argument is that God knows the mind of these people, and God knows that they know he's really God, and God knows that they know hell is real, and God knows that they are deliberately choosing eternal torment and will always choose it no matter how long they are there, and only the people that fit that criteria go to hell, then we're good. I can go along with that. I have no problem with that at all. You see, you've made a good case (if that's your case) and you've shown that in the above circumstance, eternal torment would not be evil. Well done!William J Murray
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Scamp... I think you know what I meant... this person you defined...they don't exist in reality. If there isn't a transcendent law giver and standard bearer, there is no ultimate standard to judge anything off of. Good or bad. They don't exist. --- Ram, your rabbi (assuming you are jewish?) believes in hell... so I'm not sure why you reject it?zweston
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
SB: First, the eternal nature of the suffering is decided by the sinner who chooses to remain in an unrepentant state forever. WJM:
Mind reading. Not a valid form of argument.
Incorrect. I am simply referring to the sinner whose behavior falls in that category. I did not attribute those motives or intentions to any individual. SB: Second, the sinner has made the decision to reject God for as long as God shall live, which is also forever.
More mind reading.
Incorrect. By definition, anyone who rejects God is rejecting an eternal being. I don’t presume to know who those people are. SB: Third, the amount of time that God gives the sinner to unseparate is irrelevant if the sinner’s decision to separate is final.
Predicated on mind reading.
Not even close. As the statement indicates, the amount of time God gives a sinner to unseparate or repent is irrelevant to the discussion. No attribution to any individual has been made. Meanwhile, you are ignoring the main argument: Eternal separation is the cause; eternal punishment is the effect.StephenB
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Zwerston: Scamp… lets start with one part of your comment: who sets the standard of “exemplary, loving, charitable and altruistic life”? Who decides?
The dictionary?Scamp
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Ram The idea of eternal torture from a Transcendent Blissful Reality is evil. Just like torturing babies is evil.
:lol: torturing criminals=torturing babies ??? Is this a freudian slip: criminals=innocents ? Ram ,have you done evil things in your life?
Mental illness on parade.
Well, you characterized yourself better than I could do it. PS: Torturing criminals that don't admit that they are criminals it's not evil. At all. PPS: The pills, don't forget the pills.Lieutenant Commander Data
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Ram said:
Now, you and I know this is not about “God.” This about the [sociopathic] brains of who have been propagandized with Bronze age, anthropomorphic ideas, that they can’t manage to get away from. Patently clear by anyone from the outside of their bubble.
I look at this more charitably; these are justifications that come from being in a state of extreme threat, something akin to Stockholm Syndrome. Lots of people think they actually love their abuser; they even think their abuser "loves" them. They cannot see that this is not love at all, it's the perversion of one's psychology, warped by fear. Of course I'm not going to change their minds, but it's an interesting exercise. For now, anyway : )William J Murray
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
SB said:
First, the eternal nature of the suffering is decided by the sinner who chooses to remain in an unrepentant state forever.
Mind reading. Not a valid form of argument.
Second, the sinner has made the decision to reject God for as long as God shall live, which is also forever.
More mind reading.
Third, the amount of time that God gives the sinner to unseparate is irrelevant if the sinner’s decision to separate is final.
Predicated on mind reading. Try again, this time without the attempted mind reading.William J Murray
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
SB: If God’s creatures suffer eternal torment, it is because they have separated themselves from their Creator, who is their ultimate good. WJM
Untrue, if I understand your theory correctly. The only reason they suffer eternal torment is because God has decided on an arbitrary time-limit per individual within which they can become “unseparated.” Which corresponds to your further comment:
No on three counts. First, the eternal nature of the suffering is decided by the sinner who chooses to remain in an unrepentant state forever. It is an ongoing choice. Second, the sinner has made the decision to reject God for as long as God shall live, which is also forever. Third, the amount of time that God gives the sinner to unseparate is irrelevant if the sinner’s decision to separate is final. SB: Separation is the cause, suffering is the effect; the latter follows from the former as surely as day follows night. Even in this life, being deprived of physical goods, such as water, food, and air, will cause suffering.
“Being deprived of?” In your model it would be “choosing to go without,” or choosing to separate ourselves from food and water. Or holding our breath. All of which are resolved by choosing once again to eat, drink and breathe.
That is irrelevant to the point: Being separated from the good, or choosing to separate from the good, will always produce suffering. Once the individual chooses to reunite with the physical good, the temporal suffering will stop. Once the individual decides to reunite with the spiritual good, the prospect of eternal punishment is removed, insofar as the decision is final.. .
You seem to have a problem honing in on my actual point. I’m not arguing that depriving oneself of what is spiritually good will not result in suffering. I’m not arguing that this would be an evil. The part that makes your proposition of hell evil is its permanence.
You seem to have a problem homing in on my point, Depriving one’s self of a temporal physical good, or being deprived of it, produces temporal suffering; depriving one’s self of the ultimate spiritual good produces eternal suffering. Eternal separation is the cause; eternal suffering is the effect.StephenB
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Now, it doesn't matter where people get the idea from, it's the fact that they are perfectly willing to believe in a transcendent blissful ground-of-all being, who has no wants, needs or passions, but who for some reason creates humans and tortures forever those who don't measure up. Mental illness on parade. More specifically, bronze age, anthropomorphic mental illness on parade. I would never let anyone like that baby sit my children or grand-children. --Ramram
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
The idea of eternal torture from a Transcendent Blissful Reality is evil. Just like torturing babies is evil. Everyone knows this. These sociopaths expect people to take their tortured (pardon the pun) them seriously. Period. --Ramram
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
WJM, You're arguing against a person who thinks the Most High is without needs, wants, or requirements of , bliss existence, and yet, for some unknown reason, creates people who have no real understanding of what It is, and when they fall short, instead of extinguishing the persons when they displease it, it tortures them forever. Monstrous. And as you've pointed out, they know it. Which is why they blather on and on with ridiculous justifications. Now, you and I know this is not about "God." This about the [sociopathic] brains of who have been propagandized with Bronze age, anthropomorphic ideas, that they can't manage to get away from. Patently clear by anyone from the outside of their bubble. And they believe that human sacrifice is required by the Transcendant Bliss Reality. For what? Satisfaction. Maya? Inca? Aztec? Anyone? I call this mental illness. --Ramram
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
SB, Okay, then, to argue the substance.
If God’s creatures suffer eternal torment, it is because they have separated themselves from their Creator, who is their ultimate good.
Untrue, if I understand your theory correctly. The only reason they suffer eternal torment is because God has decided on an arbitrary time-limit per individual within which they can become "unseparated." Which corresponds to your further comment:
Separation is the cause, suffering is the effect; the latter follows from the former as surely as day follows night. Even in this life, being deprived of physical goods, such as water, food, and air, will cause suffering.
"Being deprived of?" In your model it would be "choosing to go without," or choosing to separate ourselves from food and water. Or holding our breath. All of which are resolved by choosing once again to eat, drink and breathe.
Much greater suffering follows from depriving one’s self of all that is spiritually good.
You seem to have a problem honing in on my actual point. I'm not arguing that depriving oneself of what is spiritually good will not result in suffering. I'm not arguing that this would be an evil. The part that makes your proposition of hell evil is its permanence.William J Murray
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Zweston said:
WJM’s way of dealing with the reality of Jesus being God is to rail on hell.
I've never "dealt" with "the reality of Jesus being God" because I've never known that to be "the reality." I've been dealing with two separate hypotheticals: that proposition that there is evidence in the Bible that Jesus is God (there isn't, other than entirely circular evidence;) and the proposition of a permanent afterlife condition of "eternal suffering." Such a permanent afterlife condition could possibly exist, but it an evil thing.
WJM’s stop-gap is to decide hell is “evil” even though there really isn’t a such thing by his own limited judgement, so it doesn’t exist.
Of course there is evil. I didn't "decide" eternal torment was evil any more than I had to decide if torturing children was evil. They're both obviously evil.William J Murray
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
WJM's way of dealing with the reality of Jesus being God is to rail on hell. These science articles usually end in the "hell is bad" dialogue. The same people who want to talk just about the science end up only wanting to discuss theology. I cannot think of the last time I read a comment that had scientific data to refute the conclusions of the articles or studies that have been provided against materialism. Everyone has to deal with the possibility of Jesus being God and his word being true...which includes hell... or they have to distract themselves from it. WJM sees it as a reality to escape instead of a place to find refuge and life and peace. Everyone has a stop-gap to keep from going insane... the evidence and claims necessitate a verdict. Some people just stay busy and try to ignore it. Some people decide hell sounds better than heaven so they'll just do that Some people "open their mind" to finding no real objective truth Some people run to Darwin or Hitchens or you name it Some make up their own idea of reality based on what makes them feel good Some people twist the scriptures to fit their emotions and reasoning Others repent and trust and are healed and find peace and joy from the gospel. WJM's stop-gap is to decide hell is "evil" even though there really isn't a such thing by his own limited judgement, so it doesn't exist. Instead of receiving grace, some build a wall to keep it out.zweston
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
SB: If God’s creatures suffer eternal torment, it is because they have separated themselves from their Creator, who is their ultimate good. Separation is the cause, suffering is the effect; the latter follows from the former as surely as day follows night. Even in this life, being deprived of physical goods, such as water, food, and air, will cause suffering. Much greater suffering follows from depriving one’s self of all that is spiritually good. WJM
Says the guy who quells his conscience by claiming that people in hell would choose to remain there even if given the opportunity to leave,
Strawman. Notice, though, that WJM completely ignores the substance of the point he is allegedly responding to. Doesn’t that indicate an unwillingness to engage in good-faith dialogue?
and must imagine that everyone who goes to hell is deliberately doing so with full knowledge that hell is their eternal destination.
I don’t imagine any such thing. I don't presume to have "full knowledge” of even my own destination. I have a firm hope that if I ask for mercy, I will receive it. But hope is not the same thing as infallible assurance. When did people lose their capacity to make intellectual distinctions?
Eternal torment is self-evidently evil.
That is an irrational comment. In effect, WJM is saying that the principle of cause and effect is evil. Eternal suffering is the necessary consequence of the sinner’s choice to separate himself from God, and to continue confirming that choice forever. It is not logically possible to pry away the suffering from the separation. I have a question: Why did WJM intrude with his thoughts about Hell during a discussion about science and tyranny?StephenB
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Zweston said:
Repent from thinking you know better or are morally superior to the creator of the universe.
I've never thought such a thing, nor have I implied it. Like so many others have done, you're mistaking your belief in a God for my knowledge such a God exists.
Repent from rejecting Christ’s work on the cross.
If I knew what work Christ did on the cross, I'd be in a position to accept or reject it. I don't know what Christ did on the cross; I only know what people say that work was. I have no means of verifying what "that work" was, or what it meant.
Repent from your empty pursuits and idols.
Empty by what measure? My pursuits are entirely fulfilling. How else would I judge them?William J Murray
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Scamp... lets start with one part of your comment: who sets the standard of "exemplary, loving, charitable and altruistic life"? Who decides?zweston
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
So, if a person leads an exemplary, loving, charitable and altruistic life but does not believe that Jesus is God, it is morally acceptable to torture that person for eternity? Sorry, I agree with WJM on this. It is self-evidently evil.Scamp
February 6, 2022
February
02
Feb
6
06
2022
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply