Question: How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another?

_{Barry Arrington

March 2, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Theist: You say there is no God.

Evolutionary Materialist [EM]: Yes.

Theist: Yet belief in God among many (if not most) humans persists.

EM: I cannot deny that.

Theist: How do you explain that?

EM: Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption.

Theist: But you say religious belief is false.

EM: That’s correct.

Theist: Let me get this straight. According to you, religious belief has at least two characterizes: (1) it is false; and (2) evolution selected for it.

EM [looking a little pale now, because he’s just figured out where this is going]: Correct.

Theist: You believe the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis [NDS] is true.

EM: Of course.

Theist: How do you know your belief in NDS is not another false belief that evolution has selected for?

EM: ___________________

Our materialist friends are invited to fill in the blank.

Comments

Bornagain: No, you are wrong. I have explained it; you have not understood it. There is nothing more I can say.Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Bruce, even ignoring the complete moral incoherence of your position (which is VERY similar to the moral incoherence of atheism by the way). The fact is that pantheism breaks down on the scientific level as well,, just as atheism does. Where pantheism states that 'all is god' it does follow for pantheism to predict from that precept the transcendent origin of this universe, just as it does not follow for the atheists to predict the transcendent origin of the universe from their precept of a 'eternal universe, or as Carl Sagan has said,,, 'The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.' Thus not only does pantheism fail on the moral level, it fails on the most important scientific prediction that can be made by any philosophy,,, namely pantheism, like atheism, has failed to adequately address where we came from, as far as the science is concerned, so since it has failed in such a foundational way to tell us where we came from, I will hardly trust your philosophy to inform me on where I shall be going after I die!!!bornagain77_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau: I will admit that my Macbeth analogy may have overstated the case a little. I was trying to convey the idea that this physical existence is only temporary. It is but a place we visit from time to time and not our true home. It is like acting in a play. The play is not real, and when the play is over, we return to the place that is real. The play, however, has a holy purpose, which I have tried to convey above. And it is also true that each of us chooses the part we are going to play before we incarnate into a given lifetime.Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Bornagain and StephenB: It is totally pointless to continue this discussion. Neither one of you has the slightest clue what my spiritual perspective actually is. You are so stuck in your beliefs that good and evil are real and that pantheism is logically contradictory that you simply cannot understand what I am trying to convey. I would suggest that you read Conversations with God, but I don't think that would do any good either. It really is time to agree to disagree.Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Bruce David, to point out your inconsistency of logic once again,, You state; 'I prefer love to hate because I like the way love feels much better than the way hate feels. This is because I am made in His image and likeness, and He (God) IS Love. ' yet you also state that; 'Arrogance is a part of God, too.' In fact you since you hold that 'all is god', you also hold that hate, lying, murder, etc,,, are also part of your god. So which is it Bruce? Is God love or is He not? You cannot hold both views and remain logically consistent! 'The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil.' - Jesus You want desperately to be able to say what is good and evil in the world Bruce, but you have forfeited that right by attributing evil to God. Thus when you say you 'prefer love', I say 'So What???' Hitler preferred hate and you have forfeited the right to tell him, or anyone else, that his views are any less valid than yours!!!!bornagain77_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

---Bruce: "StephenB, you accuse me of seeking to be “a law unto myself”. I assume by the word “law” you mean a moral law. But I seek no such thing. I reject the notion of moral law altogether." You reject God's laws and declare them to be non-existent. That is an attempt to be a law unto yourself. If one comes to a four-way stop sign and decides that he doesn't believe in traffic laws, or decides that he is not going to follow them, he is, by virtue of that resolution, trying to become a law unto himself, making himself a public menace. It is no different with the moral laws of the universe. To deny them and refuse to follow them, is to seek to be one's own law and to be be a moral menace. ---"I seek to be one who always acts from love into the need of the moment. I don’t seek this because I hold love to be morally right. I seek it because God made me that way." Because you do not believe in morality, you cannot define the love you claim to possess, except to simply use the word as a meaningless semantic exercise. How can you perform a loving act for one who is about to become addicted to pornography if you see nothing wrong with pornography? You cannot. How can you love your neighbor if you see nothing wrong with committing adultery with his wife? You cannot. Your vague utterances that smack of sentimentality will not guide you on the path of love. How, for that matter, do you love a baby who is about to be murdered by the abortionist when you see nothing wrong with abortion. Even if your personal preference is to save the baby, you would still be useless as a citizen since you could not condemn the act in general or mobilize a group effort to have the practice stopped. How can you love someone without knowing what is good for him and what is bad for him? You cannot. Your amoral philosophy of life is totally bankrupt and quite destructive to the social order, which requires morality as a staple.StephenB_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau: You can be disgusted as long as you wish. You can judge and condemn until the cows come home. No one will stop you. But at some point, you might want to ask yourself what your judgment and condemnation actually accomplish. Hitler genuinely believed that he was doing the right thing--purifying the race in accordance with Darwinian principles. Do you think he would have cared a whit for your condemnation? To bring it into a more modern context, the men who flew the airliners into the World Trade Center believed they were warriors for Jihad and that they were martyrs for the cause of Allah. Do you think our calling them terrorists and evil will stop their compatriots? Is it possible that it might even have the opposite effect? I say to you that the only power that can truly change the world is love, and love includes compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. Wasn't it Jesus himself who said, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do?"Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

StephenB and Bornagain: I prefer French cuisine to English cuisine because I like the way French food tastes. That doesn't make French cuisine moral and English cuisine evil. I prefer humility to arrogance because in a discussion arrogance on the part of either party precludes real discourse, and I find real discourse, by which I mean a discussion in which both parties are genuinely seeking truth, much more satisfying than one in which one or both are trying to prove they are right. I prefer love to hate because I like the way love feels much better than the way hate feels. This is because I am made in His image and likeness, and He IS Love. There is no logical rule that states that a preference implies moral rectitude. You both keep trying to tar me with the brush of morality. I say that one can lead a life of love, compassion, joy, truth, and peace in the complete absence of judgment, condemnation, and punishment. In fact, it is only in the absence of these that a truly loving and joyful life is possible. StephenB, you accuse me of seeking to be "a law unto myself". I assume by the word "law" you mean a moral law. But I seek no such thing. I reject the notion of moral law altogether. I seek to be one who always acts from love into the need of the moment. I don't seek this because I hold love to be morally right. I seek it because God made me that way.Bruce David_{March 13, 2011
March
03
Mar
13
13
2011
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Oh Bruce one other thing. Hitler gets an attaboy for slaughtering, torturing and starving millions and your sensiblities are offended over the concept of hell? Vividvividbleau_{March 13, 2011
March
03
Mar
13
13
2011
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Bruce "To use an analogy, earthly existence is like being in a play, say Macbeth. In the context of the play, much happens that appears evil, but when the play is done, the director claps the actor who played Macbeth on the shoulder and says, “Well done. You played your part well and served my purpose admirably.” It’s kind of like that." Bornagain's term "madhouse" is most appropos. Lets insert Hitler for Macbeth. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews, millions of Christians and gays. What he did only apeeared to be evil. Furthermore he gets a clap on the shoulder and is told "well done, you played your part perfectly and served my purpose admirably"!!!!!! Acoording to your logic not only does Hitler get an atta boy so do the millions who suffered torture, starvation, gassing and other unspeakable crimes against their person. Way to go everyone you get atta boys as well!!! For the survivors and their families who might take an offense to these heinious crimes against humanity you say "The problem is, you take this temporary physical existence, which is not our true home nor our permanent abode, much too seriously."!!!!! This is a disgusting philosphy. Vividvividbleau_{March 13, 2011
March
03
Mar
13
13
2011
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

---"Bruce: "What you do is not reason in the sense of logical argument; rather it is inventing reasons to make what you believe sound reasonable." You wanted to know what reasoned arguments look like, so I obliged. I didn't expect you to approve of those arguments because you don't trust reason's role in discerning a false religion from a true religion, which is why you currently embrace a false religion.StephenB_{March 13, 2011
March
03
Mar
13
13
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

---Bruce: ‘Not so! Arrogance is a part of God, too. It is the part that opens the door for us to have the experience of being truly humble.’ Well, then, you should stop complaining about that good part of God that you see manifested in me [arrogance] as if it was a bad thing. In any case, truly humble people do not seek to become a law unto themselves. On the contrary, they hope to find God's laws so that they can humbly follow them. Thy want to find their own distinct identity by worshipping the one, true God as a distinct, Divine person, rather than to worship themselves as God, which is the epitome of arrogance. Why not open up your world and spend some time with Thomas Aquinas, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, Norman Geisler, or William Lane Craig.StephenB_{March 13, 2011
March
03
Mar
13
13
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Bruce David to highlight the incoherence of your beliefs you state: 'Not so! Arrogance is a part of God, too. It is the part that opens the door for us to have the experience of being truly humble.' But you also stated that 'everything is god' and thus everything is equally good in your eyes since it is all part of God,,,,,,, thus from what standard can you possibly differentiate that 'arrogance', which you have accused us of, is 'less good' than humbleness??? Since according to your view everything around us, including murder, lying, stealing, destroying, is just as good, as healing, truth, charity, and creativity??? You simply have forfeited the right to judge whether anything is good or evil when you claimed 'all is god'!!!bornagain77_{March 13, 2011
March
03
Mar
13
13
2011
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "But you told me that God, you, and I are all the same person. You should stop speaking about God and yourself that way [as arrogant]. Not so! Arrogance is a part of God, too. It is the part that opens the door for us to have the experience of being truly humble. We can be humble, but without having known its opposite, we cannot EXPERIENCE our humility.Bruce David_{March 13, 2011
March
03
Mar
13
13
2011
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

StephenB, your A, B, C of what we should expect from a person "worthy to speak for God" reminds me of the Darwinists talking about "predictions" of Darwinism which are not predictions at all but facts that were known in Darwin's time and which he created his theory to explain (eg., the increasing complexity of life as recorded in the fossils). You find qualities that seem to have been true of Jesus after the fact and then claim that reason tells us that these are precisely what we should expect. What you do is not reason in the sense of logical argument; rather it is inventing reasons to make what you believe sound reasonable. I believe that at this stage in our spiritual development there is no way we could possibly know through whom God would choose to communicate with us. It seems to me that the most important quality would be the humility to be a clear channel, but surely each age and place entails its own unique set of requirements. Furthermore, I believe that they all were God's messengers--Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Krishna, Baha'u'llah, Rumi, Yogananda, Ibn al 'Arabi, and so many more, and yes, Neale Donald Walsch. I believe that the message of each was moderated by the need to speak in a way that could be heard and understood by the people who lived in the time and place in which they delivered their messages, and I believe that the message of each has been further distorted by its translation into English (except for Walsch and Yogananda, of course), by the interpretations of those who came after, and by the very limitations of language itself. Thus, each religion and spiritual system (for want of a better word) contains both truth and error. The good news is that we are each endowed by our Creator with the ability to know everything, and we are each of us through our many incarnations moving towards that sublime and breathtaking awareness.Bruce David_{March 13, 2011
March
03
Mar
13
13
2011
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

----Bruce: “How do I know which of the many competing religions and philosophical systems, if any, are true?” First, we come to understand the nature of God in general, realizing that the first cause discussed by the philosophers, and the same first cause implied by the big bang, must be a transcendent creator of supreme intelligence and power. As I pointed out earlier, God cannot be his own creator. At that point, we have to ask who among those who have claimed to speak for God is worthy of belief. Once again, we appeal to reason. If God were to reveal himself, what should we expect? [A] We would expect that God would tell us ahead of time who to look for and what that person would be like. The least God could do is pre-announce the arrival of his spokesman. [B] We would expect that person to differentiate himself form the pack by performing miracles and associating those miracles with his claim to be God’s spokesman. [C] We would expect that this person would never teach anything contrary to the first principles of right reason. So, we line up the claimants. [A] Was Mohammed foretold? No. Was Buddha pre-announced? No? What about Confucius? No. What about your favorite author? No. These men just showed up and made a declaration. Anyone can do that. Your author can do that. With Jesus Christ it is different. We have 459 prophecies in the Old Testament announcing, among other things, the time, place, and birth of the Messiah. Other prophecies describe details of his mission as well the circumstances of his life, death, and resurrection. The odds against all these prophecies becoming manifest in time/space/history by coincidence is impossibly high. [B] Did any of these other claimants perform credible miracles in such a way that hundreds or thousands of witnesses could attest to their validity. Did any of them raise themselves from the dead and associate their claims to Divinity with the event? Was their character spotless in every way and did they practice superhuman love? Christ was the perfect person in every way. Indeed, He challenged his enemies to find even one fault in him, one unloving gesture, one broken promise, one hasty word, one intemperate act. He performed countless miracles and raised himself from the dead as proof that his claims were true. He literally came to the world to die and always knew that this was his fate. He gave his life freely and out of love. Most everyone else came to live and avoided death for as long as possible. [C] What about their teachings? Mohammed claimed that God can change his mind about morality and truth on a whim. Is that reasonable? Mohammed also insisted that his religion should be spread at the edge of a sword. Buddha, on the other hand, tells us that we can be happy only if we extinguish all desire and destroy our personality in the process? Is that reasonable? Unlike Buddha, who taught that desire should be extinguished, and unlike atheists, who tell us that our desires should be fed without constraint, Christ taught that we should use our desires to motive us in the service of love. Which one seems most reasonable to you? Christ taught us that truth and morality exist. Indeed, he claimed to be nothing less than the truth itself. Not only that, he said that He was the only way to God and that no other way exists. No other teacher has ever said that. If Christ claimed to have that authority, and didn’t have it, or if there are other ways to God, then He was not telling the truth, which means that He was not a good man or a good teacher. ---“I have accused you and others who post in these blogs of arrogance. I’ve seen nothing yet to change my mind. You assume you know the truth and that all others are in the throes of error. It’s not that simple, my friend.” But you told me that God, you, and I are all the same person. You should stop speaking about God and yourself that way.StephenB_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, that is the whole point is it not? everybody thinks their religion is the true one, even the doggone atheists think theirs is right! But I have many reasons why I find Christ to be true and alive. Number one is the Bible is unique in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. The Big Bang and the God of the Bible - Henry Schaefer PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5222493 It is also very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was, and is, correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5) The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0 Number two is that the Bible is unique in prophecies that have been fulfilled to the letter (Most remarkably, the prophesied restoration of Israel exactly in 1948) The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948 - article http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled---Israel-1948&id=449317 Number Three is the Shroud of Turin which stubbornly testifies to the resurrection of Christ; Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205 Number Four is the many 'personal' miracles I've seen in my life, especially, and most importantly, in times of need; Miracle Testimony - One Easter Sunday Sunrise Service - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995314 Number five is the changed lives, and personal testimony, of others,, Number six is the moral coherency of the Christian worldview which we have clearly outlined in this thread,,, I could probably go a lot further, to the point of excruciating boredom, but the point is Bruce, is that the integrity of my Christian belief system is, far, far more solid than anything you, or any other person, has ever presented to me! I don't know Bruce, perhaps you feel 'conversations with God' is 'holy', but I find even cursory examination to disintegrate it??? Myself, if I could not find something more solid than that in the Bible, I would still be looking. Hopefully you have not quit. note; Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153bornagain77_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Responding to #180: The passage you quote assumes that the truth can be known without difficulty. But the question that we have been grappling with is what IS the truth, and how can we know it? I'll make it personal. How can I know it? I was raised as an agnostic. I come to my search for truth equally open to all candidates. How do I know which of the many competing religions and philosophical systems, if any, are true? On what or whose authority do I decide? You tell me that reason and the revealed word of the Bible clearly show that Christianity is the answer. My Muslim friends (and I do have Muslim friends) tell me the same regarding Islam and the Koran, which after all was given word for word to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. My Bahai friend informs me that his faith trumps the others. My brother tells me that reason gives him no reason to believe in a God. How do I decide? On whose authority? I have given you my answers to those questions already, so I won't repeat myself here. I have accused you and others who post in these blogs of arrogance. I've seen nothing yet to change my mind. You assume you know the truth and that all others are in the throes of error. It's not that simple, my friend.Bruce David_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Sonfaro, I meant my "Et tu Sonfaro?" as a genuine question. I wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing it up. BruceBruce David_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: "Yet in your rejection of the reality of evil, you have in fact rendered yourself incapable of any absolute moral standard to make judgments by. i.e. by your standard of ‘All is God, All is Good’, the holocaust was not evil and Mother Theressa’s altruism towards the poorest of the poor was not good. As StephenB has so clearly pointed out, from this pantheistic point of departure, of ‘All is God’, your worldview dissolves into a ‘madhouse’ of logical inconsistency." Can you really not see that your argument begs the question? My worldview is a "‘madhouse’ of logical inconsistency" only if you already assume that good and evil exist. Otherwise it merely disagrees with yours. Your use of the term "worldview" is apt. It appears to me that the real difficulty you and others are having with me is that you judge parts of my worldview out of the context of the whole. The notion that good and evil do not exist really only makes sense in the light of the whole metaphysical/spiritual system that I espouse. I have tried throughout this thread to convey a sense of that whole. One of the most important aspects to understand about it is God's purpose for physical creation, which I have explained several times, but which, unfortunately, is very difficult to convey adequately in the limited space that these threads provide. In Conversations with God, God takes some 11 pages to explain it the first time, and revisits the question several times in the ensuing volumes. To use an analogy, earthly existence is like being in a play, say Macbeth. In the context of the play, much happens that appears evil, but when the play is done, the director claps the actor who played Macbeth on the shoulder and says, "Well done. You played your part well and served my purpose admirably." It's kind of like that. The problem is, you take this temporary physical existence, which is not our true home nor our permanent abode, much too seriously.Bruce David_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

E. Michael Jones summed it up best: “There are ultimately only two alternatives in the intellectual life: either one conforms desire to the truth or one conforms truth to desire.” Truth often stands in the way of me fulfilling my desires. When truth does not fit my desires, rather than acknowledge the wrongness of my desires, and seek change, it is easier to change the “truth” and bring it in line with my desires. Thus truth, ceases to be an unchanging standard once it becomes flexible, and man can adjust it to fit his desires. Not unlike children who want to change the rules of the game once it becomes evident that they are not winning."StephenB_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Bruce’s musings bring up a rather interesting point. Only Christianity provides a precise definition of love. “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.” Love is that which builds up life. It follows, then, that there is a kind of love that does not build up life. This self-serving love is described in the commandments. “Whatever commandment there is is summed up in one command: love one another.” “God is love,” but there is another kind of love seen in the human race that is not godly. If I murder someone, I have violated the law of love that preserves life, the only sacred value known to man (“in him was life, and this life was the light of men”). My action, according to the Biblical view, is evil. And I have also murdered him if I am even angry with him. “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer,” because by hating him I deprive him of life. I cause him pain and unhappiness. This logically consistent description of love is both precise and unique.allanius_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

-"I detect a certain subtle condescension from more than one of you (et tu, Sonfaro?), so I am going to say a little bit about myself here" Whoa, didn't mean to give you that impression... Unless you're British. If you are, then yeah. I'm being condesending. >:D U-S-A! U-S-A! (The fistbumps continue as the world groans.) ... Seriously, while I don't fully understand or agree with your theology, I certainly don't think less of you for it. If you sensed condesention on my part then I apologize. - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Bruce, you pride yourself on being logical, and indeed in the 'calculus' of your rejection of Christian Theism, you have rejected the existence of evil because you find it 'logically' inconsistent with God's characteristic of infinite love. Yet in your rejection of the reality of evil, you have in fact rendered yourself incapable of any absolute moral standard to make judgments by. i.e. by your standard of 'All is God, All is Good', the holocaust was not evil and Mother Theressa's altruism towards the poorest of the poor was not good. As StephenB has so clearly pointed out, from this pantheistic point of departure, of 'All is God', your worldview dissolves into a 'madhouse' of logical inconsistency. And not to be condecending to you in the least but perhaps it would be well for you to be a bit more humble as to how highly you think yourself capable of logical thought (math degrees and all), when you have in fact made such a gross error in your foundational precept of rejecting evil solely based on only one characteristic of God (infinite love) while ignoring the other characteristics of God (infinitely just, infinitely holy)??? ---------- Skillet "Awake and Alive" Music Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-iB9qKZ2HIbornagain77_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Thank you, Collin. Your comment prompts me to give it one more shot. I detect a certain subtle condescension from more than one of you (et tu, Sonfaro?), so I am going to say a little bit about myself here. I graduated cum laude from one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country (Carleton College). My major was mathematics and my minor was philosophy. I received an "A" in every course I took in both subjects. I subsequently earned a master's in math from the University of Md. I say this to support the following: 1) I'm not stupid, and 2) I'm very well trained in logical reasoning. I am very careful about the logical consistency of what I believe and what I write, and at the risk of appearing arrogant, I can say that if you see an obvious logical error in something I have written, in all likelihood you have not fully understood it. This of course could be as much my fault as yours, or maybe even entirely my fault, but a proper response would be to ask for clarification. I have alluded in earlier posts a couple of times to the difference between the discipline of mathematics on the one hand, and those of philosophy and theology on the other. I would like to take a closer look at this topic. As I mentioned, it is significant that although all three utilize "reason", only mathematics enjoys virtually universal acceptance of the conclusions of its practitioners. With very few exceptions, mathematicians do not argue over whether a given theorem has been proved. Why should this be? What is it about mathematics that sets it apart from philosophy and theology? The reason is this: of the three, only mathematics recognizes the limitations of reason. In a tradition that began with Euclid, all mathematical reasoning proceeds from statements that are taken as true without proof (axioms) plus definitions, and derives all the rest using rules of inference. Only mathematics recognizes that the sole power reason has is the ability to validate that a given proposition follows from other propositions. It is not capable of arriving at truth starting from scratch, as it were. In philosophical and religious arguments, there are always assumptions, propositions taken as true without proof. However, they are seldom, if ever, identified as such. For example, several of you have attempted to refute my arguments by invoking moral law, or morality. That there is absolute morality appears to be a proposition taken as true without proof by most of you, since in your arguments, it is always simply assumed to be true. Now the logical problem with this approach is that you are attempting to use your own axiom to show that my views (eg., my brand of pantheism) are logically contradictory. This, however, is an invalid argument, since I made it quite clear that I don’t accept that axiom as true. You may believe that I am wrong, and attempt to persuade me of that, but the charge of logical inconsistency is incorrect. Another example is your attempt to refute my assertion that a God of love would never create a Hell by invoking divine justice. However, if there is no absolute morality (which I believe we all agree means morality handed down by God) in my theology, then the whole idea of divine justice collapses, since justice means punishment for morally bad behavior and reward for morally good behavior and in God’s eyes there is neither (in my theology). I have axioms around the notion of unconditional love. It is axiomatic for me that unconditional love is incompatible with judgment, condemnation, or punishment. I cannot prove this. It derives from my own personal experience of the nature of unconditional love. Bornagain has written a couple of times that reconciling God’s love and God’s justice is subtle and difficult. I say it’s impossible. It is also axiomatic for me that all genuine love is unconditional. So what are the sources of that which we know as true without proof? I see two legitimate such sources: intuition and what Werner Erhard calls “natural knowing”. Intuition, unfortunately, is fallible, or more precisely, is hard to identify clearly, but natural knowing is a direct source of truth (another of my axioms). It is a kind of seeing. A good example is Descartes’ realization after doubting everything that “I think, therefore I am.” He couched it in logical form, but actually it was a kind of seeing that thoughts require a thinker. I did not list revelation as a source of that which we know without proof because there are so many sources claiming to be revelation in the world, and so we must somehow select which one or ones in which to put our faith. If we are fortunate we use our intuition for this, but most of us simply accept what we were taught as children. Beyond all this, however, is the fact that ultimately real knowledge of the true nature of reality is beyond logic altogether. As it says in the opening line of the Tao Te Ching, “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” (Stephen Mitchell translation) In other words, language is incapable of expressing the Truth of Reality. And since logic is rooted in language, it is also incapable of discerning and expressing ultimate Truth. So the most we can do is talk about it or around it or point to it with language, but ultimately, it is ineffable (and replete with apparent paradox, by the way). One can only approach it through intuition and natural knowing. Language and logic can point to it but not express it. I know that most of you will not agree with what I have said, and, unfortunately, will come back at me with more condescending arguments as to why my views are stupid and not based on reason. But that’s how it is in these blogs, isn’t it. Those of us who are convinced that ID is true have the same problem with Darwinists, don’t we.Bruce David_{March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

-"...talking with him is like an american talking about the american revolution with the british." What's there to talk about? We won, they lost. U-S-A! U-S-A! (*Sonfaro fistbumps while the rest of the world collectively facepalms.) ;) - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 11, 2011
March
03
Mar
11
11
2011
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Kuartus, I've had trouble discussing the revolution with a Brit, and I'm Canadian. :)CannuckianYankee_{March 11, 2011
March
03
Mar
11
11
2011
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Bruce, Your comments can be useful to lurkers.Collin_{March 11, 2011
March
03
Mar
11
11
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee I completely agree with you. God's love and justice makes it necessary for there to be consequences for evil. As for bruce here, it was pretty clear that his disbelief in hell was because of subjective feelings and personal ideology, not because he had thought about it rationally. He has invented his own brand of morality so talking with him is like an american talking about the american revolution with the british.kuartus_{March 11, 2011
March
03
Mar
11
11
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

...truth, because it lies entirely elsewhere in the laws of right reason.CannuckianYankee_{March 10, 2011
March
03
Mar
10
10
2011
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply